 Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting of the committee in 2015. If you wish to use tablets or mobile phones during the meeting, please switch to the flight mode as they may affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting. That is because we provide meeting papers in digital format. We have received apologies today from Claire Adamson. I welcome Stuart Stevenson to the meeting as Claire substitute for this morning. We will turn to agenda item 1, which is the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill. It is day 3 of our consideration of stage 2. I welcome back Marko Biagi, Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment. I also welcome Alison Johnstone and Ken McIntosh. Later in the proceedings we will also be joined by Alison McInnes. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill is introduced, the latest marshaled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to speak to and move their amendment and to speak to all of the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not already spoken in the group, I will invite the minister to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding up speech. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press their amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question in that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it, they should say not moved. Please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the martial list. Only committee members or their official substitutes are allowed to vote at stage 2. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. If we can start off, can I call amendment 1084 in the name of the minister in a group on its own? Minister, could you speak to you and move your amendment, please? Thank you, convener, and good morning. Amendment 1084 responds to the recommendation made by the committee to review the legislation relating to Forestry Commission Scotland leasing land to communities for forestry purposes. That was supported by a number of stakeholders, not least the Scottish Woodlot Association. The existing legislation that allows FCS to delegate its forest management functions is based on the requirements of the community right to buy provisions under part 2 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. It requires a community body to be a company limited by guarantee and to define its community by postcode units. Since the requirement of the community right to buy scheme is being amended by the bill, together with the introduction of asset transfer requests for community bodies, it is right to amend the forestry legislation to align with those new schemes. The amendment will allow for any form of corporate body to take on a forest release and the community represented by that body need not be defined by geographical boundaries. It also brings the requirements for a community body in line with the criteria for a community-controlled body that can make an asset transfer request. As you make clear, those criteria apply only to leases for forestry purposes, which are typically for 25 years or more. FCS also leases and sells land to community organisations for other purposes such as recreation or housing through the national forest land scheme. All those transactions will in future come under the rules for asset transfer requests, as set out in the bill, but relevant authorities are free to set their own policies for leases depending on the length and type of agreement. It just so happens that for FCS that policy has to be set out in legislation and that is what this amendment seeks to do. I move amendment 1084. The question is that amendment 1084 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 1231 in the name of Alison Johnstone, grouped with the other amendments shown on the groupings. Ms Johnstone, could I ask you to move amendment 1231 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? I thank the committee for their time today and the convener for agreeing that this important issue should be considered at stage 2. I know that you have a lot of amendments to cover, so I will keep this summary brief. I will explain the purpose and rationale first and then quickly summarise the practical operation of these amendments. The problem of masking Parliament to fix is straightforward and should be obvious to everyone. The truth ball has been dragged from the back pages of Scotland's newspaper to the front by a series of catastrophic failures from small clubs like Gretna to clubs at the very top like Hearts and Rangers. The current model of ownership has failed and we know both from Scotland and elsewhere that fan ownership works and that fans are obviously going to be the people with the long-term interests of their clubs closest to their hearts. It is hard for fans to assemble the money and the structure without a right to buy. Those proposals would not force fans to buy. In fact, there would still be substantial hurdles to doing so, but they would mean that if a well-organised fans trust had the support of the fans, they could secure first right of refusal if the club is being sold anyway or has, like so many recently, fallen into administration. The base proposal and the key structural elements of that are covered in amendments 1-2-3-1 to 1-2-3-8, plus 1-2-4-8 to 1-2-4-8. Amendment 1-2-3-9, which members may wish to vote separately on, would mean that right to buy would apply anytime, giving fans trusts that have clear backing from supporters the ability to make a bid for their club. That is how they would work. A trust would first express an interest in the purchase of their club and seek to be on the public register of fans trusts. Ministers can reject an application if it is not clear that the trust is predominantly composed of fans of that club, or if the trust is not open to join at an affordable rate, or if it is not clear that members of the trust are sufficiently supportive of a bid to buy the club, and there is also a general public interest test. If the expression of interest is accepted, then fans are assured preferred bidder status for their club if it comes up for sale or goes into administration, although, again, that must be approved by a vote of the trust and Scottish ministers. If the second amendment is accepted, then they would be able to buy the club for either an agreed price or an independent valuation at any time. Where more than one trust applies to buy a particular club, only one may be permitted to proceed. In most cases, that should encourage fans to bring different bodies together to support a bid, as has happened through the foundation of hearts. The base amendment also proposes that trusts should be eligible to apply for funding from Scottish Government to assist with a purchase, and it is not specified in the amendment, but my expectation is that it would be likely to come in the form of loans or underwriting, rather than direct grants, especially if fans of larger clubs apply successfully. The last two provisions in the base amendments are to allow an appeal by an owner against the exercise of the right to buy, as required by the European Convention on Human Rights, and an option to buy a smaller proportion of the shares in a club, particularly where the trust cannot afford to buy the club outright. Every party around the table is on record as supporting fans, and there will never be a better opportunity to put fans in the driving seat of Scottish football. I would urge you all to support the amendments and I move amendment 1231. Thank you very much. I now open it up for debate. Thank you very much indeed, convener. I don't seek to pick at the underlying principle in this set of amendments, but perhaps just to seek information about the implementation of that principle and the amendments that are before us. Let me just start by something that perhaps central belt members may have overlooked. That is, of course, the status and issues in relation to Highland League clubs, of which I have three in my parliamentary constituency, in Bucky, in Banff and in Fraserborough. As we know, Highland League clubs have very successfully been a feeder for more senior positions in Ross County. My father's previous club and, of course, Callie Jaggs, who were, interestingly, a merger of two of the three clubs in Inverness, Clachna Cudden having refused to come out and play in the merger. That immediately opens up one of the issues. That there may be circumstances where the purchase actually may not relate to a single club, but be in the circumstances where clubs are merging. The current construction of the amendments that are before us probably would exclude action by supporters in those circumstances. Perhaps the movers of the amendments might care to have a little think about that, because I don't suspect that that's actually the intention of the movers of those amendments. I'm by no means going to cover all the detail, which is very substantial, perhaps just to show that there's enough that perhaps some further thinking needs. I think that there's a little misunderstanding, perhaps, of how share ownership and voting may not be as easily connected as is thought. The amendments talk about a majority of the voting shares, and that's fine, but there may be circumstances and Governments, when they've sold off companies, have particularly exercised this right and it happens in commercial environments as well, where previous owners retain a single share, which, while not having the vote, the character of a vote that may cause something to happen, carry with it the right to veto an action that's being taken. I think that the construction of the amendments perhaps doesn't fully address that way in which things may happen. Secondly, the amendments talk about the purchase of a majority of a club, and I understand what's intended there. Again, the difficulty is that an individual purchase could well not be about buying a majority of the club at all. It may be about adding to a significant shareholding that creates a majority rather than being a purchase of a majority. I suspect that the movers are not seeking to exclude that, but the construction of the amendments may look at that. The other thing that is, of course, possible is that there may be circumstances where the transfer of ownership, or part of the ownership of the club, may take place without any value exchange whatsoever. Again, the movers are unlikely to be seeking to exclude that, although I think that one is in very tricky territory there, so I think that there's a wee bit more thinking that requires to be done. I had a more general question that I genuinely don't know the answer to. That is simply whether, in operating with the provisions of the company act, which is clearly a reserved matter, we are crossing the line into ultra-virus issues. I'm sure that advice will have been taken on that issue. It would be helpful if the movers of the amendments were able to perhaps give us the comfort that that particular issue has been looked at, because I would hate to see that initiative fall for that particular reason above all. Finally, a little word of caution about the use of the word fans. Fans come in all shapes of form. I don't think that we should discount the idea that David Murray was a fan of rangers, but a fan with sufficient money that he could act alone in what he thought was the club's interests. We need to be very careful about how we talk about fans and how we define fans. I think that this is a very good and eminently supportable effort in principle, but I think that there's maybe further work that requires to be done on some of the detail. I'm not seeking to pretend that I have exhausted all the things I might find if I spent a wee bit more time as a regular member of the committee rather than someone who was parachuted in at perhaps comparatively late notice. Thank you. Cameron Buchanan, please. Thank you very much, convener. I'm also concerned about the technicalities of this bill, both legal and otherwise. We raised it at our group meeting, and I would have liked more time to have considered it. However, I just think that the principle has agreed, but there is a lack of detail about it, so I slightly share my students' disquiet on certain aspects of it, but I think it's the legal action that was difficult to consider, really. The technicalities are a bit difficult to understand, but I'm not of a mind to push that. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to everyone. Thank you, Alison Johnstone, for those amendments, which are very broadly supportive. I wonder in her summing up, convener, that Alison might refer to give us a little bit more clarity on the problem that fans, groups and trusts will face in mounting a bid and getting the necessary funding to do that. At the tail end of that, putting in place any finance, perhaps, that might be required to make it a successful process, she referred to possible funding eligibility at the beginning of a process by way of loans or underwriting, et cetera. That's, in my experience, sometimes the stumbling block for fans groups to assemble a credible bid. It's to get sufficient funding together to mount the process to begin with and to demonstrate to all parties the concern that they have sufficient funds to carry it through. I would welcome a wee bit more clarity on those aspects of the proposer's amendments. Thank you. I'd certainly want to speak in support of the amendments that have been brought forward today. I should say I'm a Kelty Harps junior football club supporter, but no matter what team you support, if you go regularly to those games, you feel quite passionate about it. It has been this last few years, I think, disbelief when we've seen the events that have taken place in some of the biggest football clubs, but also some of the lower league football clubs or clubs like Don Femin, for example. When Don Femin's gone through, it was difficult to meet regularly with the fans and knew who they were going through. As their club became very close to being put out of business. I think that we need to look at the principles of these amendments about empowering fans. If there are some technicalities here, if there are issues in terms of drafting that need to be tightened up, then that could be done as the bill goes forward to stage 3. The principle of getting the bill on to the face of the bill would be the right thing to do if we can support the principle of this today, support the amendments going forward. If there is work to be done, that work can be done between now and stage 3. I would certainly want to support and if the amendments are moved today, I would certainly be supporting them. Ken Macintosh, please. I also want to speak in support of amendment 1231 from Alison Johnstone and to speak in favour of all the amendments in this group. This is about extending the right to buy to football clubs and communities across Scotland, and it is a proposal that all of my colleagues in Scottish Labour are proud to support. I believe that members of the committee and across the Parliament, in fact, are united in support of the principles behind the community empowerment bill. In many ways, it is the proposals around community ownership, which are the most exciting part of the legislation. The right to buy introduced through the Land Reform Act has been a hugely important practical as well as symbolic change to the way communities interact with the land that they occupy across Scotland. Its benefits have been felt not just in rural areas, in the Highlands and Islands, but in urban areas such as Nielsen and East Renfrewshire, where local people, for example, through the development trust now own a wind farm in their community and have exerted direct influence over the community that they live in and the shape of that community. I believe that it is time that we took that experience and those principles to the next stage. I believe that football club ownership is the ideal place to start. I believe that it would be difficult for anyone in this room or, frankly, across Scotland to stand up and argue that the current state of Scottish football in terms of its accountability, sustainability or simply its success is a model that should be continued. Succesive ownership models, including that of the sugar daddy approach or of foreign oligarchs have proven an unmitigated disaster and have ruined many once proud local football clubs. Football fans and local communities have not only lost out, they have been made to feel powerless and even taken advantage of and are good well exploited. If we compare that to fan ownership models such as Barcelona or as practised by virtually every club across Germany, we can see that there are some examples that we should be emulating. No-one is arguing that fan ownership is the only answer or even the best option in every case, but it deserves at least to be one of the options for the future of Scottish football clubs. I am not going to repeat the many safeguards and caveats that are already outlined by Alison Johnstone, but it is clear that if we accept these amendments, football clubs in Scotland can operate in the fans' interests, in the communities' interests and in the public interests. I noted the points that both Stuart Stevenson, Cymru Canton and Willie Coffey made, and they were particularly hesitant about the current framing of the clauses before us. I do not entirely accept the argument that they made, but what is more important about the clauses before us is that we accept. I will take it, Mr Stewart. Just in particular, would you be sympathetic to the idea that we should extend this to Highland League as well as simply? Well, before we have even accepted this particular set of amendments, I am delighted that Stuart Stevenson wants to accept it and then build on that, but I think that we should take one step at a time and accept this set of proposals for the major Scottish football clubs in Scotland. I would suggest, particularly to Cameron Buchanan who is concerned about technicalities, that there may be minor concerns, but this legislation that is before us now is lifted almost entirely from the Land Reform Act. It is not new legislation. It is modelled exactly on existing legislation that has been proven to work and has proven to be effective and is practised currently in Scotland. Not only that, it is not a new approach. There are many fans already in Scotland who have bought out their football clubs and have firmly just been one example, but the current state of legislation in Scotland makes it very difficult for them to do so. It puts all sorts of obstacles in their way. I do not think that we should continue on that route. I think that, in this case, if we have concerns, if we do not adopt it now at stage 2, it is very unlikely to adopt it at stage 3. It is more important that we adopt the principles, accept these amendments at stage 2 and then work on the technicalities at stage 3. On that basis, I would urge all members of the committee to support the members before them today. Thank you to the members for bringing us forward. I have heard a lot here about what I can agree with. The Scottish Government is extremely positive about support, involvement and ownership. It is something that we can endorse as an aim. We have already convened a working group under Stephen Morrow bringing together supporters groups, SFAS, PFL and to construct a consensus way forward on that. I can personally relate to it. It is not something that is widely known. The team that I followed in my youth had financial issues, bad management, bankruptcy, plummeted four divisions and ended up having to re-register under a different name. Before you are assuming what club that is, let me tell you it is the Serie A club, Fiorentina, which shows that these kind of financial problems can happen in a wide range of contexts, in countries, and it is an issue that many football leagues are having to grapple with. On reflection and in consultation with colleagues, we are convinced that legislation on this area could be very helpful in ensuring that this aim is advanced. Therefore, it would be our intention at stage 3 to introduce amendments that would allow much of this to be achieved by regulations mainly, but with an explicit reference in the bill to achieving the aim. That would allow us to consult, to co-produce the detail of the regulations with supporters groups and ensure that we have a system that does not just express the principle and express sympathy but could actually work. There are a number of issues with the approach of these amendments in detail and in principle. In detail, Stuart Stevenson has already brought some of his financial and company law expertise to bear and has presumably only been able to see these amendments for the last few days. These are complex amendments, a new bill almost. A new bill that were to be introduced as a bill would probably either go to the sport committee or to underwrite to buy to rural affairs and I do think we need in making such big changes as this to a bill for new opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny in respect to other subject committees there as well as the opportunity for widespread public consultation. Scottish Government hasn't been able to consult directly on these in the way that we normally would before we were going to legislate on anything. Thank you, minister. Just for clarification minister, in today's decisions regarding these amendments could you give me a clear stare in relation to would you be minded not to accept these amendments today or would you be minded to accept these amendments on the basis that the Scottish Government along with others can move forward to stage 3 and bring forward the amendments that you would wish to introduce at stage 3. I'm keen, like other members of this committee, to try and get the bill at the present moment that we can actually move forward with and if need be they can be refined at stage 3 rather than voting down the amendments that are before us today to then, because we may be in a similar position at stage 3 and maybe less so at stage 3 because we will be considering amendments just a couple of days prior to the stage 3 debate in the chamber. So would the minister be minded to support the amendments that are before us in the name of Alison Johnson and Ken Mactosh to allow us to move forward and then we can actually work round the issues that have been identified and the amendments presented today. Can I perhaps get to that that was an area I was working towards I just want to to highlight the issues with the detail here at this point. The detail that has been already highlighted is in there and if the amendments pass would be primary legislation pending the stage 3 amendments that we would be talking about clubs aren't land a lot of their value is intangible a lot of their value depends on the players that are with them as well as the complex structures of ownership whereby a stadium might be owned by one holding company and something else might be owned by another. In Fiorentina's case the stadium was owned by the municipality so it would be an interesting approach for the local government committee to take but I don't think we would quite be there in Scotland. Do you think that in that point? Yes. There are some clubs as I understand that the grounds are currently owned by the local authorities and the clubs use those grounds. The issue about local authority ownership of football grounds at the present moment in Scotland is already in place. One of the difficulties that we've had in many of the difficulties that the fans have had is trying to distinguish what exactly the club is because you're right the ground is owned by one company the name of the club is owned by someone else and the players are employed by another organisation so it's trying to hopefully these amendments would help clarify in Scottish football terms what exactly a football club is and what is that entity rather than at the present moment we seem to have various different corporations claiming to own different parts of clubs and the fans themselves are unaware of what exactly the club is constituted by in relation to ownership. My apologies for my slight irreverent aside about local authority ownership of clubs of Stadia and Italy. I think the point that I was aiming at there was made very effectively by the deputy convener on complex ownership structures and actually the need to get valuation systems right if it is to operate in that way and if clubs are in the point of insolvency if they then hold for six months pending a fan group coming together that actually potentially makes liquidation more likely because in that period you may have the flight of players or you may have the inability of other bidders to come in and you can see unintended consequences here where you might actually end up with more clubs going into liquidation than is the present time and that's the kind of unintended consequence none of us want to see. That's the kind of unintended consequence we have to make sure the amendments or whatever legislation gets put in place will not lead to. There's also the issue of the non-league clubs there's the issue of potentially competing claims from land reform there's no test about whether a community bid would be financially viable so all of these are important details with the amendments that are here in front of us at the moment but I think there is a principle here we want to ensure that fans have greater opportunity to participate in running and the ownership and we're all on the same page for that that's great I believe the better approach would be to include the explicit reference and then to develop through secondary legislation the detail thereafter now can we get this right by stage 3? We can certainly further amend if these amendments are passed today in the direction of these amendments or we could move to the more secondary legislation approach if we take the approach of putting these amendments in and then amending at stage 3 everything right in the next six weeks because it is very hard to amend primary legislation and the need introducing primary legislation requires a process of consultation and development that for the most part except in emergency circumstances usually takes a lot longer than six weeks so affirmative procedure for the development of the details with the aim put in the bill would allow consultation with the wider footballing community appropriately with Parliament and it would ensure that we don't just endorse the principle but we ensure that any legislation that was introduced we get right and also that we can keep that legislation more easily updated in light of developments changing circumstances any kinds of experiences we have in implementation I would hope that everyone can see the benefits of that approach we will be introducing amendments at stage 3 because, as I said, we all agree with the aim of increasing support or involvement in ownership and we consider that legislation would be helpful in advancing that in that aim I would ask the members to withdraw the amendments but either way the Government will be proceeding that way at stage 3 and putting that before Parliament Thank you minister I call on Alison Johnstone to wind up and press her with draw Thank you very much I would certainly be happy to work with the minister before stage 3 but I am afraid that those commitments don't yet cover the essentials of this proposal I too am grateful for the work that Stephen Morrill and his group put in but they were expressly asked not to look at this issue which I think was unfortunate I think it's very important to note that we have initially polled people 80% of those support a right to buy sale or administration and in our latest survey 81% of people supported a right to buy at any time and a third of those responding were from representatives of fans trusts I think it's really important that this is on the face of the bill the minister has spoken about regulations but we as a Parliament cannot amend those regulations we can only agree to give you a flavour of some of the support we've received for those proposals Dave Scott from Nil by Mouth said they would be supportive of proposals for greater fan control and ownership of their clubs and feel that this could be an exciting opportunity for the silent majority of fans to find their voice and use their increased position to bring about the real changes required to bring the Scottish game into the 21st century Stuart Duncan, a former director of football club and also of supporters direct UK said I'm very excited at the prospect of fans being given the right to buy clubs, provincial and otherwise community assets as shown by my club Greenock Morton who now have a vibrant and highly successful community trust a fan led initiative which is in their own words the heart beat of Inverclyde these community assets are best protected by the people who have the club as the hub of the community at heart and a Kilmarnock fan said to us that community ownership is one of the few sustainable and viable ways of running football clubs in Scotland it's fair to say that the bulk of responses from ranger fans were supportive but many were also libelous so I'm not I'm not going to read any if it goes out here's one that I think should be safe though I support rangers so it would avoid a situation arising like the one that arose over the past few years rangers fans are the only people who will take proper care of rangers football club and a Saint Moran fan said simply give us the tools to do the job now I could read out these quotes all day but I think that will probably guarantee a rejection of my amendments by the committee concluding are you going to give away to the minister Mr Smith? it's notable that those are sentiments that I think we've all broadly expressed around this committee and that certainly sentiments about a positive approach to supporter ownership that the Government would endorse but I don't want to there is a distinction between those on the amendments in front of us and I do wonder if in quoting those and proposing the amendments when what you're quoting is something we all broadly agree with perhaps manufacturing a disagreement here when we do have an agreement around those principles and those sentiments Mr Johnson? if we have an agreement in principle and we are as supportive as we all purport to be then please support the amendments today and let's look at the technicalities before stage 3 I would like to say that if those amendments pass today I will work with all parties here to achieve consensus on refinements that may be required at stage 3 about the nature of the organisations that can bid about the role of Scottish ministers and any other issues that are raised by fans or members but agreeing those measures today could be the last chance for years for a proper fan led reform of the Scottish game if this committee doesn't back fan ownership today how many clubs will fumble and how many will stumble from one crisis to another how many will fold and how many enterprise and groups of local people will continue to be shut out of a role I do urge all members to vote for these amendments today and I'd like to press amendment 1231 Thank you Ms Johnston The question is that amendment 1231 be agreed Are we all agreed? Yes Thank you Can I call amendments 1232 to 1248 all in the name of Alison Johnston and all previously debated Can I ask Alison Johnston to move amendments 1232 to 1248 on block Moved Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 1232 to 1248 Okay In which case are we all agreed? Agreed Thank you very much Can I call amendment 1085 in the name of the minister agreed with amendments 1086 1249 and 1250 Minister can I ask you to move amendment 1085 and speak to all amendments in the group please I'm happy to bring forward amendments 1085 and 1086 in response to committee recommendation As you know the aim of the bill in relation to common good is to increase people's awareness of what property is common good and their involvement in decisions about it If the authority proposes to dispose of or change the use of any common good property the bill requires them to consult people about that change Specifically, they must notify and seek representations from community councils in the local authority area and any community bodies known to have an interest in the property Many local authorities have separate common good funds for different towns We recognise that especially for authorities that cover a large geographical area it may be burdensome to consult all the community councils in the local authority area over one common good property Under the local government Scotland act 1994 local authorities are required to administer their common good property with regard to the interests of the inhabitants of the area to which it relates That does not apply to the four city councils since their common good funds cover the whole of their area The amendment therefore limits the consultation requirement of those community councils whose area covers all or part of the area to which the common good in question relates As this implements one of the committee's recommendations in particular arising from the experience of Highland Council, I hope that those amendments will be supported The effect of Cameron Buchanan's amendments would be to remove the requirement for local authorities to have regard to guidance on the management and use of property that forms part of the common good They would still be required to have regard to the specific duties imposed by the bill in relation to common good I appreciate that Cameron Buchanan may want local authorities to have more freedom in their management of common good property The message that I am hearing and I know the committee has heard too is that people do not feel that common good is always being managed properly even when no disposal or change of use is involved We should retain the option of issuing guidance on any aspect of common good management not to move those amendments and I move amendment 1085 I call Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 1249 and other amendments in the group Thank you very much indeed I was going to say that this first of all was a probing amendment because it is all very well that Scottish ministers can issue guidance in relation to the management and use of the property that forms part of the common good but can you explain what you have done what form this guidance would take and also would you explain whether the guidance would be technical or would it be a policy one That was the point of being the probing amendment mind rather than the I see no other hand Minister would you like to wind up and answer Mr Buchanan's question if you can, too please I am not sure if I understand the distinction that he is aiming to make between policy and technical policy guidance can generally be quite technical I wonder if he could clarify by an intervention No, it's really what I want to explain what form this guidance would actually take it's the word guidance I'm not going to press it I just want to know what form it would take Minister? All guidance is developed in partnership with all those involved We know there are strong views that have been expressed on common good about the management maintenance and we think that having this power here would allow us to try and address some of the uncertainty that is out there and create something that will give us certainty about what they should be expecting from common good Okay, the question is that amendment 1085 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1086 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 1085 Minister to move formally please Moved, thank you The question is that amendment 1086 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 65 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you Can I call amendment 1249 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1085 I'm going too quickly Cameron Buchanan to move or not move Not moved Are folk content that that's not moved Thank you Can I call amendment 1250 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1085 Mr Buchanan to move or not move Not moved Are the committee content? Thank you The question is that section 66 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 67 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you Can I call amendment 1164 in the name of Ken Macintosh grouped with the other amendments shown in the groupings Can I draw members' attention to the information of the committee's group? Can I ask Mr Macintosh to move amendment 1164 and speak to all amendments in the groupings Thank you, convener. I want to move a number of amendments this morning on the issue of allotments and I do so on behalf often with the support of the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society, the key organisation representing plot holders and the allotment community in Scotland I'd like to begin in fact by thanking the members of SAGS for taking the time to give MSPs, including Government ministers on this important subject In fact, I believe that the minister and I are amongst a number of members who enjoyed the hospitality of SAGS at their international conference centre which for those who haven't been there is in fact a Port of Cabin with a solar power roof in Inverleith in Edinburgh I think that it's fair to say that SAGS is appreciative of the Government's commitment to allotments and of ministerial efforts to offer great protection to allotment sites through the community empowerment bill I think that it's also fair to say, however, that the allotment community is hugely anxious that whatever their good intentions ministers run the risk of getting it fundamentally wrong with some of the clauses in this bill To the point that at stage 1 I would remind members that SAGS felt plot holders might be better off to scrap part 7 of the bill altogether SAGS have moved on from that position and they believe that the bill will be a move in the right direction if the Parliament can address three outstanding issues fair rent, waiting times and the first of these this morning the size of a standard allotment plot At the moment in the bill is introduced an allotment is defined in section 68d as quote of such a size as may be prescribed However, the pressure on local authorities to meet demand for allotments a pressure about to become a legal obligation for local authorities to meet in this very bill has resulted in many councils dividing and subdividing existing plots The very real fear expressed by SAGS is that unless the size of a plot is defined and protected in statute local authorities will reduce plot sizes further in order to reduce their waiting lists This is already happening in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife and elsewhere across Scotland Amendment 1168 in my name requires that the land offered to a potential plot holder approximately 250 sqm that is roughly half the size of this room that we are meeting in or for those with a sporting bent roughly the size of a tennis court SAGS argue that this amendment defining the size of a standard allotment plot is essential to protect the unique identity and role of allotments They point out that if it has been accepted for decades that the amount of land required to provide most of the needs of a family unit is in the region of 250 sqm This space can provide year-round activity for the retired the unemployed and they worry that unless it is so defined plot holders may not have access to the area of land necessary for their needs I would highlight to the minister and to members that allotments are a fundamental part of the Scottish Government's food and drink policy to support and encourage people across Scotland to grow your own fruit and veg 250 sqm would enable a family unit to grow most of their own consumption of fruit and vegetables A definition of size in primary legislation is necessary to stop local authorities from subdividing plots to reduce their waiting lists forcing people to accept smaller plots than they require The allotment community accepts that not everyone needs or wants 250 sqm but this amendment also ensures that they are made available for those who want them but it is their choice, not one imposing them The wording will also allow for existing allotments that may be over 250 sqm Sags have highlighted that whatever her good intentions they do not support amendment 1129, submitted by Eileen McLeod, which contains the words quote no more than 250 sqm in area Sags are firmly of the belief that the definition no more than 250 sqm will allow local authorities to offer plot sizes that suit them, the providers rather than the plot holders Even with regulations it will be up to ministers and the local authorities to determine what is offered under that process rather than allowing people and the local associations to determine what area they wish to cultivate I would remind fellow MSPs that the basic purpose of this bill is supposedly to empower communities to give people more control over their own lives and not to have Government at whatever level to dictate what people want and need The basis tenet of the bill is subsidiarity Edinburgh has a waiting list of between 7 and 10 years but we also know that once people are offered half a plot that will be subdivided forever I urge members to support amendment 1168 in my name and the consequential amendments 1164 to 1167 and I move amendment 1164 Minister, can I ask you to speak to amendment 1229 and other amendments in the group please Thank you, those amendments address the issue of the size of an allotment and the fact that we have three different options here reflects the really quite considerable debate that has been on the issue Allotments have a long and proud history in this country and several factors distinguish them from other forms of growing but one of the most important is clearly the scale We've worked very closely with the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society in the last few months to understand and wherever possible to meet their needs we have been listening While 250 square metres has been discussed as a reference size I know that the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society recognises that not everybody wants an allotment of that size at all stages of their life There may be new allotment holders who want to start small and then move up to a larger area later to see others who feel they are no longer able to manage such an area and would welcome a smaller piece of ground to grow on The amendments in the name of Aileen McLeod to seek to provide that flexibility Amendment 1129 would set a maximum size of an allotment at 250 square metres as Akin McIntosh said just smaller than a standard size tennis court Amendment 1230 will require the Government to make further provision in secondary legislation in connection with allotments It is our intention that the maximum size would apply prospectively only Transitional provisions will ensure that existing allotments that are larger than 250 square metres will be protected This approach seeks in the definition of an allotment to clearly give an indication of the scale of allotment growing as opposed to community growing spaces which in comparison are predominantly on a much smaller scale or recognising the uniqueness of allotments As well as providing flexibility we will provide security by bringing forward secondary legislation that will make further provisions on size We will have through that process the necessary time to encourage and foster collaborative working relationships between the allotment growing community and allotment providers in the local authority which in some instances though not all are currently strained to develop secondary legislation that provides that flexibility that everyone agrees is needed but which has an intended outcome that meets the needs of everybody in all of their interests Ken Macintosh's amendments do seek the same outcome as the amendment put forward in the name of Dr McLeod to establish a maximum size of an allotment after all it is broadly a maximum size there while providing flexibility for smaller size allotments where they are wanted there is a difficulty with the wording defining allotment as being of a size of approximately 250 square metres is too imprecise in law for local authorities and tenants to know exactly what it means consequently it would be unclear how subsection 3 of the amendment that refers to meeting a request for a size smaller than that set out in subsection 2 would operate because the definition of subsection 3 than allotment should be whatever size is requested may appear attractive in principle this would be impractical on the ground an exceptionally onerous to implement from a local authorities perspective as you could imagine them having to measure and deliver plots of different sizes to every individual to any level of specificity they might imagine the amendment in the name of Dr McLeod is more precise and by bringing forward secondary legislation in this area will provide the necessary time to make sure we get this right to meet the competing needs of everyone Mr Wilson Minister just in the points that you are making about the size and the 250 square metres that is being recommended by SAGS in relation to having a standard size plot during your consideration of this bill at stage 1 we did discuss the issue about those plots maybe being subdivided either half or quartered to suit the needs of possibly as Ken Macintosh indicated in his comments those coming into the allotments or those heading out of in terms of taking up retirement from allotment grown it's really just in relation to that issue in the size issue I'm keen to ensure that any discussions regarding the sizes that are offered are done so in conjunction with the allotment grows society that exists locally because what I don't want to see is the local authorities offering people the only chance that they may have of having an allotment that may be 50 square metres or 70 square metres anything below the 250 square metres that's been recommended so it's really just trying to get clarification on the closing of maths minister in relation to what would be the problem with the agreement to actually set the defined size that we can work with but ensuring that any negotiations and any offers that are made in relation to the size being given at the first stage is one that is in conjunction with the local allotment growers society so that they're in control of the sizes that are being allocated rather than the local authority in the first instance being the arbiter in terms of the sizes of allotment that's being offered to any new members who wish to take up allotment growing In this section the minister of course doesn't have closing remarks Minister I'm sorry I missed your comment there I'm saying you don't have closing remarks because the grouping is in Mr Macintosh's name on you go the second legislation could deliver that and you've heard from my comments already the value of the partnership that we want to try and build here to try and build some bridges between groups that in some cases have been strained Now ultimately we can require a lot of consultation and there is quite strongly in the bill a lot of consultation mechanisms about issues that we will come to for example on rent where we want to emphasise of developing in partnership with local growers as well but the second legislation we think is an opportunity to ensure that that happens we're also talking about we've also committed to a tripartite group with ministers and SAGs that would be taking an overview of this on a more national strategic level to ensure that what is happening at the local level is also representing the needs of everybody and a food growing strategy that would emphasise collaborative working so there's going to be a lot of levers being pulled to try and ensure collaboration both locally and nationally on this because this is an area where if everybody is in trenches taking potshots at each other we're not going to get anything done but if we can manage to find that common ground we can deliver a system that will be practically implementable but which will also reflect the views of the people who want allotments and we want more people to have allotments we're not ashamed to say that we have to find a way to make that happen and to make it happen in a way that everybody on the ground locally can accept I just wanted to add as well about Cameron Buchanan's amendment that I think leaving the size of allotments and the authorities to determine goes against some of the debates we've been having, the views of the stakeholders, what the community are asking us to do and consider so I would hope that he would at least consider withdrawing that but I would urge members to support amendments 1229 and 1230 as the best of two broadly similar options for determining the size of allotments that is better on being able to be implemented and be practical a way of achieving the objectives that we share Thank you, can I call Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 1252 and other amendments in the group please Thank you very much indeed I've got this amendment is actually stating what local authorities are able to determine allotment sizes within their own area give the power to local authorities inside them I do acknowledge and share the intention that allotment holders should have an allotment of reasonable size but it must recognise the need for flexibility here which is what I was trying to achieve I think in order to help allotments to be given to as many people as possible and to minimise the waiting list which I think is very important this bill should make it clear that local authorities have the freedom to adjust allotment sizes to fit demand supply and under all local circumstances that is the point of my amendment Thank you I now open it up to other members Alec Riley first please Thank you, convener I'm not sure if I should declare an interest given that I'm a keen allotment grower but my experience and when we were looking at this as a bill went through my experience in the allotments where I have an allotment in Kelty has been and I've been fairly I've often had discussion with council officials about this I think councils need to be more innovative in the way that they try to engage people in allotments and the problem in the Kelty allotments is that over the last few years I've seen quite a number of interestingly young mums with kids come down and just be given an allotment and I think my allotment is bigger than half this room and they've found it really difficult to then maintain that and manage it and in talking to some of those parents it's interesting because one of the things that they've wanted to do is actually get the message across to kids that this is how food is produced and how it's grown and there is some interesting projects there is a community allotment there is also NHS Fife through one of the mental health projects have allotments there so there is some interesting stuff but I don't think that the council certainly in that case have been ambitious enough so when the size thing came up at the committee I would have to say that for me I wasn't quite grasping that an unforeseen consequence of this bill could be that councils in order to meet the requirements of the bill would start having smaller allotments and I was looking at more that councils need to be more innovative and actually having started our plots quarter plots half plots but in order to do that we define roughly what a plot is because having looked at this further since the committee looked at it and talked to allotment holders and talked to the association I think that there is a genuine concern and I think that it is right it's a genuine concern that councils would meet the legislation simply by reducing the number of the sizes of plots and if that were to happen that would be devastating and as people get used to and that's why I could talk about starter plots because as people get used to growing and managing allotments then they do find that they want to grow more as they become more successful at it so I would hope that there is a way that we could find and the minister has acknowledged that there is an issue here and if it is possible to find a way that we can ensure that this maximum size this ideal size is there and councils don't have the ability to just simply reduce that in order to meet the legislation if there's a way of doing that then I think that we should try and find that working together with the Government as we move forward Alison McInnes, please I'm grateful to you to give me the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments and just take a moment to reflect on the work that the committee has done in this area and what members went to to seek the views of allotment holders and other interested parties as you went through your evidence taken and the many benefits of allotment gardening are now widely recognised and active lifestyle, healthy eating, healthy ageing combined with community interaction means that those with allotments reap all sorts of benefits I've been discussing this bill like many of you with the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society and I am sympathetic to their argument that there needs to be specific provision for the size of allotments and that will mean that land is not unduly divvied up to meet demand while it still retains some flexibility and I would therefore like to put on record my support for Ken Macintosh's amendment number 1168 which would mean a plot is 250 square metres unless a person seeking to lease the land requested it to be smaller The society notes that it's long been held that this is the size of a plot as Ken has said that is needed to ensure a family of four and I know that the society believes this will help ensure an appropriate balance between the needs of the allotment community and the local authority Thank you, convener I just wanted to pose to Ken some quite specific questions about the definition of what approximately 250 metres squared means Does it include 25 metres squared? Does it include 100 metres squared? Does it include 200 metres squared? Does it include 300 metres squared? Does it include 500 metres squared? In other words how far does the approximation extend? If the definition were just for the sake of illustration not because I advocate this to say between 200 and 300 metres that would be precise and would be approximately 250 metres and that would actually be approximately 250 metres and I think it would be helpful to try and understand at what point does something cease to be approximately 250 metres Is it as low as 25 metres? Is it as high as 500? Those numbers are entirely arbitrary Thank you, convener Can I call on Ken McIntosh to wind up and press her withdraw please Thank you, convener and thank you very much for all the members on the set of amendments just perhaps going in reverse order starting with Stuart Stevenson's point the word approximately is well used in legislation and is used repeatedly in legislation and is there is no difficulty in local authorities or for that of it it came to a court of law interpreting that word and what I would suggest is that the term 250 square metres is used because the previous measures included measurements such as schools and other such long gone units of measurements and the size, 250 square metres is one that's been agreed upon not just by myself and sides but by the Government so the Government accept that 250 square metres is the standard size that we are trying to define so I would suggest that your worries about you know how far the word approximately stretches is ill-founded in this particular case the minister intervener sorry, I'm too softly spoken for my own good sometimes I was wondering which legislation you'd maybe looked at as the model for this but also if that has also an interaction with smaller than which seems to be an issue here because it's not just a case of where does approximately kick in is it at 230, is it at 220 because there's then a clause that refers to smaller than 250 that is a bit of a recipe for confusion and we wouldn't want something as simple as the size of allotments to end up in courts over the interpretation of primary legislation again, I was going to come on to that point next first of all the use of the word approximately one of the reasons I haven't brought several examples is because there are so many uses of the word approximately it wasn't worth me quoting and listening to you so it's a well used and well founded term used by the Scottish Government in fact and the point that the minister made the technicality that the minister questioned so first of all I do not accept that this will be an issue of contention I don't believe that there will be a difficulty in either local authorities or allotment holders having any difficulty but defining what is meant when we're seeing approximately 250 square metres interestingly the minister brought up this idea that the use of the term a size smaller than is not defined well I would suggest that it is very clear what a size smaller than means and I would contrast his questioning of the definition of a size smaller than with the support for the other amendment moved by Eileen McLeod that says up to 250 square metres and I would ask the minister what is the difference between up to 250 square metres and smaller than approximately 250 because where as something sees being smaller than approximately 250 and start to be approximately 250 is it 220, is it 230, is it 210 that's the the doubt that is thrown up by the amendment which I have great sympathy with in terms of its aim minister sorry Mr Matthews thank you for that wonderful stage I would suggest that that's a fairly spurious point I don't accept if you accept up to 250 square metres you can accept smaller than 250 square metres I'd happy to give way to Mr Rowley accepting the principle and I don't know if I was picking up right but I seem to accept that the size there is a standard size around a lot of men I don't know if you picked up but that seems to be my view that if we accept the principle is there something that can be worked up here with the Government if we're all accepting the principle can we work something up going forward do you think Indeed that hang on it's a very helpful comment in fact I wanted to pick up on Mr Rowley's comment earlier that I believe that there is clearly goodwill it's clear that the minister has been listening and others are working with him and I know he's going out of his way to meet them and to try to meet their concerns and I think that I'll really capture the spirit both of this discussion and of the minister's intention that we can proceed from this stage in stage 2 to stage 3 to continue to work and to collaborate and to make sure that we are agreed on these definitions and the point being here is that we are all agreed and there is very little contention around the standard size of the lot we are agreed it should be that way the two questions that were raised by Cameron and another one by John Wilson about flexibility and control because the amendments before us all offer flexibility but the flexibility or the control as to who exercises the discretion in one case is exercised entirely by the local authority and in the case of my amendments is exercised by the individuals it's about empowering individuals empowering communities the difficulty that I have with giving individuals that flexibility is that local authorities or individuals when offered by a local authority and allotment may take the size that's given by that local authority because they may see that as the only option they have and the suggestion that I made earlier to the minister was that the decision to offer smaller sized allotments should be taken in conjunction with the allotment grower society in that area so that there is no undermining of the authority of the allotment grower society that basically then diminishes what we are trying to achieve in terms of the approximate 250 square metre allotment size because there is a danger that you could actually get people who believe that the only will be offered say 50 square metres or 100 square metres by the local authority without any consultation with the allotment grower society that should exist and should be assisting in the management of that allotment area Mr Macintosh Mr Wilson makes a very good point and it was one very similar to the one that Mr Rowley made earlier which is that there is undoubtedly a process and in fact the one that the minister alluded to about collaboration between local authorities allotment society and allotment plot holders is that by innovative thinking by bringing in starting plots and so on but by making sure that these options are clearly spelled out to those applying for allotment or for a plot we can reach exactly the right solution in this case but I think it's what's crucial and what's captured in my amendment and not in the other amendments is that we've put in place this protection that existing allotment holders believe they need if for example at the Inverleith allotment and you have a look round you can see the standard size allotments plots, quite a few of them but you can also see rows and rows of sheds back to back and these are the results of subdivided plots where people are being forced on to ever smaller areas of land and it's not necessarily their choice and in many cases they would like actually to upsize but they don't have that opportunity we are putting in this bill a particular legal obligation on councils to do something about waiting lists and councils will be very acutely aware of their legal responsibilities and they will act on those to cut waiting lists and that pressure to cut waiting lists if they do not have if they take the easy option rather than find the land that might be needed is to take the existing allotments and cut them in half and cut them in half again that is exactly what's happening at the moment and that's what allotment holders fear and that's the fear that we have to address is by putting in some protection on the face of the bill in primary legislation now whilst working with the minister and allotment society as we approach stage 3 to further define and further refine how we approach this measure so I would urge members in the spirit that we've all taken to approach this measure to support the amendments in my name so you're pressing I am pressing the question is that amendment 1164 be agreed to, are we all agreed? no we go to the vote those in favour of amendment 1164 please show and those against 1164 please show thank you those in favour of amendment 1164 4 those against 3 the question is agreed to the question is the can I call amendment 1165 in the name of Ken Macintosh already debated with amendment 1164 to move or not move the question is that amendment 1165 be agreed to are we all agreed? okay we go to the vote those in favour of amendment 1165 please show and those against 1165 please show those in favour 4 those against 3 the question is agreed to the question is that amendment 1166 be agreed to are we all agreed? oh sorry thank you Mr Macintosh are we all agreed that 1166 should be agreed to in which case we go to the vote those in favour of amendment 1166 please show and those against please show those in favour 4 those against 3 the question is agreed to amendment 1167 in the name of Ken Macintosh already debated with amendment 1164 Mr Macintosh to move or not move moved thank you again the question is that amendment 1167 be agreed to are we all agreed? in which case we go to the vote those in favour of amendment 1167 please show and those against 1167 please show those in favour 4 amendment 1251 in the name of Cameron Buchanan grouped with the other amendments shown on the groupings can I draw members' attention to the information shown in the groupings about preemptions in this group Mr Buchanan could you move amendment 1251 and speak to all amendments in the group please thank you very much convener this is concerning making a profit out of the allotments and I find it very difficult to know how you can define profit there are a number of references in this bill that seek to prohibit any profit being made from the allotments produce however it is totally unclear to me why allotments users should be prevented from making a profit I mean how do you define profit is it when you grow it when you buy the seeds it's not just a selling price it's very difficult to define profit and I think it would be an issue if large retailers were taking up allotments to supply their stores so that they could enjoy the use of allotments space and cultivate vegetable fruits, herbs or flowers if this happens to be the case they have excess produce and wish to sell it why are we to forbid it we heard the example of one person who is a member of SAG and their allotment they had a sort of every weekend every once a month everybody got together to sell the produce on a particular day openly and it was not like a farmers market allotment so I think realistically allotment users can take a pride in selling their produce that they have worked hard to cultivate any profits gained from these sort of sales are not intended for companies' balance sheets but rather a small reward for the labours that they have put in furthermore other areas of this bill I think they seek to avoid waste of crops and allow for compensation where it is due to simultaneous prohibit any sale of allotments produce seems to be contradicting the avoidance of doubt my amendments in this regard intend to make it clear that the allotment holders may sell their product for a profit if they wish small sales for relatively small amounts of money are not a cog in a corporate supply chain but instead a chance for waste to be avoided and compensation for hard work to be obtained where it is deserved thank you can I call the minister to speak to amendment 1176 and other amendments in the group thank you the amendments from Cameron Buchanan would remove the ability of local authorities where it would result in the sale of surplus produce produced on allotments being able to be sold for profit additionally they would remove the ability of local authorities to include provision about the sale of surplus produce in regulations about allotments this would prevent local authorities from taking account of local factors in determining how surplus produce area may be sold those amendments could also have the unintended consequence of bringing allotment holders within the scope of the Agricultural Holdings Scotland Act 1991 since such production could fall within the definition of agricultural land which includes land being used for the purposes of a trade or business that would mean they would fall under an entirely different statutory regime which is not tailored to allotments additionally the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society of argued very strongly very strongly that the purpose of an allotment is to provide self-sufficiency in good food rather than be a means to provide additional income they consider that any proceeds from sale should only go back into the allotment association to be reinvested in that community of allotment holders amendments 1176, 1216 and 1217 lodged in the name of Dr McLeod loosen the provisions relating to the sale of surplus produce those amendments remove the need for Scottish ministers to prescribe what produce may be sold and so allow produce of any type to be sold subject to any regulations made by a local authority those amendments do not affect the definition of an allotment which will still need to be used otherwise and with a view to making a profit I recognise yes I'm just trying to get this into my mind and I know that there are some allotments during the grown season where they'll have a table and they'll have produce there and you'll have people selling that produce maybe for the allotments committee but also maybe to cover the cost to their heating and their seeds for bringing the plants on what you're saying is that that would be able to continue the bill is specifically intended to allow the sale of surplus produce on a not-for-profit basis that was a request from stakeholders what we are trying to do is to ensure that that remains on a not-for-profit basis if allotments become essentially small if allotments become essentially small agricultural businesses that completely change the nature of them and also the legislation that they would be under How does the minister define profit that's what I was trying to say is a odd word to use for produce that's being sold homegrown? I think again we have to fall back on the fairly well understood meaning of the word profit in legislation where there is a clear understanding of what constitutes profit under commercial trading and what is a surplus in a not-for-profit organisation those are two relatively distinct terms that we recognise in organisations that work so this would allow the not-for-profit sale the kind of things that we are talking about there where any proceeds were reinvested in for example the community of allotment holders the association of allotment holders and that is something that we all want to see but this would prevent the commercialisation of allotments to go back to where I was I just think that we want to ensure that allotments is about community it's about family it's about the small scale production for either a social purpose or for your immediate use rather than opening up perhaps a consequence that we don't want of going into the Agricultural Holdings Act the agricultural holdings legislation has its own requirements about leases, rent review, compensation provides for inheritance right to buy dispute resolution to the land court it's a completely separate area and we want to keep allotments within allotments legislation OK, any other member? No, in which case Cameron Buchanan can ask you to wind up and press her withdraw please I think that I don't need to say any more on the subject but I would press the amendment Thank you, the question is that amendment 1251 would be agreed to are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 1251 please show and those against amendment 1251 please show In favour of the amendment 1 against 6 the question is disagreed to can I call amendment 1229 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 1164 can I remind members that amendments 1229 and 1168 are direct alternatives that can be agreed to but if this happens the text inserted into the bill by amendment 1168 will replace that inserted by amendment 1229 in addition if either of these amendments is agreed to amendment 1252 cannot be called Minister can I ask you to move formally? The question is that amendment 1229 be agreed to are we all agreed? We're not all agreed those in favour of amendment 1229 please show and those against 1229 please show I'm sorry but I've got to wait for this bit of paper before I give the result time consuming those in favour of the amendment 3 those against 4 the question is disagreed to can I call amendment 1168 in the name of Ken Macintosh that we're already debated with amendment 1164 Mr Macintosh to move or not move The question is that amendment 1168 be agreed to are we all agreed? We're not agreed those in favour of amendment 1168 please show and those against 1168 please show Thank you those 4 those against 3 the question is agreed to the question is that section 68 be agreed to are we all agreed? The question is that section 69 be agreed to are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1230 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 1164 Minister to move formally please moved The question is that amendment 1230 be agreed to are we all agreed? Thank you Can I call amendment 1169 in the name of Aileen McLeod agreed with amendments 1170 1193 and 1194 Minister can ask you to move amendment 1169 and speak to all amendments in the group please Thank you convener The bill is introduced allows for a disabled person who has a physical impairment to include information about their needs on the grounds of disability when making a request for an allotment and requires the local authority to include in its annual allotment report information about the number of allotments which are accessible and which have been adjusted during the year to be accessible to a disabled person who has a physical impairment We have recognised that these provisions should recognise a broader definition of disability Accordingly, amendments 1169, 1193 1194 remove the reference to a physical impairment creating instead a broader reference to a disabled person The bill at section 73 already allows a disabled person making a request to lease an allotment to include information about the person's needs relating to access to an allotment or allotment site and about possible adjustments to an allotment that might be needed on grounds of disability amendment 1170 extends this provision so that when a request is made by a disabled person for an allotment it may also include information about the possible adjustments to an allotment site needed by that person on grounds of disability This will enable local authorities to ensure that the opportunities for growing food on an allotment are open to all including those with a disability and to assist this it will be aware of any possible adjustments that may be needed These amendments ensure that the provisions on allotments support the equality agenda and I hope that the committee will support them I move amendment 1169 Thank you, Stewart Stevenson, please Thank you, just a brief question to the minister I hope that in his concluding remarks he will be able to confirm that the disabled will include the disabled that are either temporary or intermittent as I'm sure we would wish to extend the rights to people in that category That's in this one No minister Would you like to wind up please? The reference would be to a disabled person I think that would cover anybody who is disabled whether that is temporary or otherwise but I would be happy to check that Thank you The question is that amendment 1169 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you Can I call amendment 1170 in the name of Eileen McLeod already debated with amendment 1169 The question is that amendment 1170 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you Can I call amendment 1253 in the name of Cameron Buchanan and a group on its own Mr Buchanan can I ask you to move and speak to amendment 1253 Thank you, convener As members can see this is actually quite a simple amendment to speed up the process for members of the public who apply to lease an allotment It can take a long time for people to which we heard in many submissions for someone to move up the allotment waiting list so the last thing I think people need is unnecessary delays to get the process started As a result, I propose that the time within the local authority must confirm receipt of a request to lease an allotment is reduced from a lengthy 28 days to a more reasonable 14 Thank you Any other member Do you wish to enter the debate on this one? Minister, please As Cameron Buchanan has said this would reduce the time for receipt of a request to lease an allotment from 28 to 14 days, I'm happy to support the amendment Thank you Oh sorry, Cameron Do you wish to wind up and press or withdraw? No, I wish to press The question is that amendment 1253 be agreed to Are we all agreed? Thank you The question is that section 71 be agreed to Are we all agreed? I suggest that we take a comfort break and I suspend to 5 past 11 Thank you I now call amendment 1254 in the name of Cameron Buchanan grouped with amendments 1171 1255 and 1192 Mr Buchanan to move amendment 1254 and speak to all other amendments It's easy This is another probing amendment because I'm all for the principle that waitingness should be kept as small as possible so that the time it takes to be given an allotment is minimised, which follows on from my other amendment on 1253 but I'm concerned that the target for maintaining a number of people on the waiting list at more than half of the total number number of allotments owned and leased by the authority will have unwanted consequences that distort incentives Can the minister provide assurances that the target will not place an incentive for local authorities to refuse requests to join the waiting list That's really the essential part of it Thank you Mr Buchanan Can I call Ken Macintosh to speak to amendment 1171 and other amendments in the great place Mr Macintosh Thank you very much I want to move amendment 1171 to speak in favour of amendment 1255 in the name of Alec Rowley At the moment section 72 of the bill is introduced places a legal duty on local authorities to provide allotments and to take action to deal with waiting lists It does so by requiring councils to ensure that the number of people waiting for a plot is no greater than half the number of allotments owned and leased by the authority Amendment 1171 in my name would put in place an additional caveat or stipulation that no one should wait more than five years Amendment 1255 in the name of my colleague Alec Rowley would ensure that plots are created near the communities that need them and particularly so when these are otherwise socio-economically deprived areas The Scottish Allotments and Garden society have estimated that average plot turnover for most allotments is about 5 per cent a year Even with the 50 per cent trigger point in the bill is introduced this could easily mean someone waiting 10 years or more for a plot Several witnesses have testified that the current waiting time in Edinburgh for example is somewhere between 7 and 10 years My amendment creates an additional trigger point or time limit of five years and just to emphasise that SAGs believe that this is a very reasonable request not an undue burden on local authorities I certainly wanted the amendment to read about three years but we're willing to compromise on five years As it is, on reaching the trigger point laid out in the bill local authorities are only required to take reasonable steps to make additional provision These are not absolute deadlines by when additional provision must be provided I'm sure members are aware of the many benefits provided by allotments to our community People need a plot for healthy food to recover from physical or mental illness as a family activity with their children or when facing unemployment or retirement Allotments offer an opportunity for all those who wish to enjoy the benefits of gardening and working in the outdoors It's also very much an issue of social justice People in areas of multiple deprivation often do not have access to gardens They should not have to wait 10 years for an allotment and it's important that in meeting their needs the local community rather than the entire local authority area That is the focus of the amendment from Alec Rowley which I would also urge you to support I understand that some local authorities are concerned about the availability of land and the cost of developing allotments However, those fears can be addressed Very little land is required to fulfil current demand even in the major cities To continue the sporting analogy from earlier an area the size of a football pitch would satisfy the present demand from a settlement of 10,000 people and Edinburgh's entire waiting list of more than 2,500 people could be accommodated on an area of land less than that required for a golf course If land is provided and local authorities work in partnership with allotment associations the funding required to create allotments can be generated from a variety of sources and need not pose a strain on local authority finances to agree amendments 1171 and 1255 Can I call on Alec Rowley to speak to amendment 1255 and other amendments in the group please This amendment is supported by allotments in garden society The bill currently sets a trigger point of which local authorities are required to take reasonable steps to provide additional allotments This amendment sets a limit on the geographical area for the trigger points that should be organised around local communities rather than entire local authority areas I feel that the inclusion of a trigger point in the bill would be ineffective if those registered to gain access to an allotment are told that they can only access an allotment in an unsuitable location which is too far from their own community For example, Mone constituency if somebody in Blingary is told that they can have an allotment along in methyl as well as two bus rides in an hour or so to get there and back it just wouldn't be practical but it would be within the local authority area so I think it really needs to do that As part of a healthy well-being and food-grown strategy people should be able to access an allotment within their own community without having to rely on driving or a bus or public transport to get to the allotment I do not feel this amendment will place any burden on local authorities but I do feel that it will help solidify the trigger point principle which is written within the bill I also do hope that in terms of the amendment put forward by Kate Mackintosh I mean, five years seems like a long time to wait but I know that in some communities particularly in the cities it's even higher so I'm supportive of that but I do hope that what will happen from this bill is that I commend the Government for bringing forward the allotments policy within this bill I do hope that it will spur local authorities on to see the importance of the food strategies and grown your own food and that hopefully through time even five years will seem quite alien but for now it's necessary to put it in so with that I move I'm just happy to move, convener Minister, can I ask you to speak to amendment 1192 and other amendments in the group please Thank you Those amendments take different approaches to the issue of waiting lists and the provision of allotments I'm aware that members of the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society have experienced a great level of variability in the performance of local authorities at meeting their current duty to provide allotments and in developing the bill the Government looked at various ways of framing a revised duty whether by timescale, by demand One key point is that the bill will for the first time require local authorities to maintain a waiting list so that demand for allotments is absolutely clear and we have linked the duty to take reasonable steps to provide allotments to the number of people on that waiting list This seems to us the most appropriate way to frame the duty linking it to a clear demand for allotments I do recognise that the turnover of allotments can be slow because allotments have sought an additional measure based on timescale However, local authorities have expressed the view that linking the duty to a specific timeframe would create a substantial practical burden That's why we haven't added a timescale to the duty and why I can't support Ken Macintosh's amendment 1171 What we've proposed in amendment 1192 lodged in the name of Dr McLeod my colleague, is that a local authority must include in its annual allotments report the number of persons who have been on its waiting list for a continuous period of more than five years This would, we believe, lead to substantial pressure to ensure that that number was kept down This amendment will be supplemented by guidance supporting the bill detailing expectations about waiting times and will ensure that we all in the community and elsewhere have an ability to monitor our local authorities' performance This, in tandem with a strengthened duty to take reasonable steps to provide allotments has the potential, we believe, to deliver an additional almost 1,000 allotments following the commencement of the act, based on the information that we have available to us I believe that this strikes an appropriate balance between the desire to shorten the time people have to wait for an allotment and the abilities of local authorities I do note, with some irony that Ken Macintosh and myself stood at the COSLA Convention on Friday and he made some comments about the Scottish Government wishing to dictate to local authorities from on high and centralised decision making I believe that this sets the balance between practicality and local autonomy Additionally, Dr McLeod has made a commitment to establish a tripartite group that will meet annually to include the Scottish ministers local authorities and the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society This group will assess the progress made on the implementation of part 7 of the bill and we hope to help to foster that more trusting, more positive more constructive working relationship that I referred to earlier Furthermore, we will also be using as a Government the duty in the bill to develop a food growing strategy as a way to progress that constructive partnership between all parties including local authorities, SAGs and community growers One of the key areas of discussion we expect and I don't think anybody would deny will be the road map for how local authorities are going to deliver how they are going to take reasonable steps, how they will meet the requirement to carry forward the provisions in the bill One of the risks that was raised with us was that if local authorities are under pressure to provide more allotments they might be provided in locations at a distance from those who want them On that basis Alec Rowley's amendment 1255 which would make explicit that allotments should be provided where they are wanted seems a matter of common sense and I'm happy to support it Cameron Buchanan's amendment 1254 would move the bill in a completely opposite direction from what the Government and Ken Macintosh in particular are trying to achieve by lengthening a potential waiting list before the local authority was required to take steps to provide more allotments I don't know if Cameron Buchanan is supporting that flexibility and that longer waiting list that would be at odds with Ken Macintosh's amendments but to clarify the point that he raised there are no grounds set out in the bill for refusing a receipt of a request for an allotment to go on a waiting list so there is no question of perverse incentives being set up I would ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw amendment 1254 having got that clarification from me but I'd also ask Ken Macintosh perhaps more in hope than expectation not to move amendment 1171 and I urge members to support amendments 1255 in the name of Alex Rowley and amendment 1192 in the name of Dr McLeod Thank you minister any other member wish to enter the debate Alison McInnes please Thank you convener I'd like briefly to register my support for amendments 1171 and 1255 in the name of Ken Macintosh Alex Rowley respectively on the face of it while these amendments might be perceived as somewhat onerous the committee recognised in its own report that much of urban Scotland has parcels of land which are or could be made available for cultivation but which are currently sitting idle and not being used and Nourish Scotland told the committee that less ground is being used for allotments in the whole of Scotland than there is derelict land in Edinburgh tackling waiting lists is vital to sustaining a new generation of allotment gardeners Low turnover of course is an indication of success in this case and Alex Rowley is right to stress the need for provision for folks within their local community I believe that these amendments could foster the process of land reform and encourage local authorities to perceive vacant land as a resource which should be utilised whenever possible Thank you Can I ask Cameron McCannon to wind up and to press her with draw please Thank you very much convener In view of what the minister says about I've certainly not my intention to lengthen the waiting list, it was more to prescribe the fact that they wouldn't be they wouldn't say the same so I'll withdraw my amendment and review what your assurance was Committee content that that be withdrawn in which case can I call amendment 1171 in the name of Ken Mackintosh already debated with amendment 1254 Mr Mackintosh to move or not to move Just to clarify, convener Can I get a chance to sum up or not No Move or not move The question is that amendment 1171 be agreed to, are we all agreed In which case we go to the vote those in favour of amendment 1171 please show and those against 1171 please show those in favour for, those against three the question is agreed to I call amendment 1255 in the name of Alec Rowley already debated with amendment 1254 Mr Rowley to move or not move The question is that amendment 1255 be agreed to, are we all agreed Thank you The question is that section 72 be agreed to, are we all agreed Thank you Can I call amendment 1172 in the name of Aileen McLeod in a group on its own Minister to move and speak to the amendment amendment 1172 lodged in the name of Dr McLeod will require local authorities to provide reasonable access for tenants of allotments and allotments sites to allotments and allotments sites this could be via paths, roads and so on where a local authority leases an allotment to a tenant the amendment would require the reasonable access to be to that allotment and the site on which it is situated there is an allotment site that is leased to an allotment association the reasonable access would be to that site an allotment situated on it this is a restatement of section 15 of the allotments Scotland act 1922 with amendments and so will not result in any additional burden on local authorities and this amendment takes forward in part one of the five point propositions put forward by SAGS that sought basic infrastructure including amongst other things paths so I move amendment 1172 thank you any one else minister wind up question is that amendment 1172 be agreed to are we all agreed thank you can I call amendment 1173 in the name of Aileen McLeod route with amendment 1174 minister to move amendment 1173 and speak to both amendments in the group please thank you amendment 1173 lodged in the name of Dr McLeod will require local authorities to make regulations that include a method of determining a fair rent following extensive discussion with the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society this amendment builds on an initial requirement on local authorities to make regulations about allotment sites in their area and include provisions relating to rent and that this would be developed through extensive consultation this amendment requires a local authority when setting its rent levels to take account of the services that are provided by or on behalf of the local authority to tenants of allotments the costs of those services and any circumstance that may affect the ability of a person to pay the rent this amendment therefore further ensures that those on low incomes will not be dissuaded from participating in growing food on allotments on the basis of a lack of affordability amendment 1174 lodged by Ken McIntosh would introduce requirements on regulations about rent which have some similarity to those lodged by Aileen McLeod and I would only say that great minds sometimes think alike the amendment in the name of Dr McLeod we believe though goes one step further than Mr McIntosh's proposal and effectively defines affordability as I said circumstances that affect or may affect the ability of a person to pay the rent payable under the lease of an allotment I recognise that Mr McIntosh's desire to have a statement published by an authority about how affordability has been considered as provided for in subsection 3b of his amendment local authorities are of course already required to consult before making allotment regulations and I would think that such a statement could be included in the consultation document Members are concerned that a statement about that affordability should be made more explicit I am happy to consider that with a view to my colleague Dr McLeod bringing something forward at stage 3 I would urge the committee to support the amendment in the name of Dr McLeod which does seek to achieve broadly the same thing but does it more precision and I believe stronger safeguards so I would move amendment 1173 and I would ask Ken McIntosh having made his points and expressed his agreement and the great sense of consensus that is breaking out now on the committee not to move his amendment Thank you Ken McIntosh to speak to amendment 1174 and other amendments in the group please Thank you, Kevena and allotment and plot holders have long benefited from the protection of a fair rent clause I suspect, at least I hope it was simply an oversight that no such clause was in the original draft of this bill and without such a clause there's nothing to stop a local authority from increasing rents either to generate additional funds or simply to use as a tool to price people off their allotments thereby enabling them to reduce their waiting lists Although, as the minister said, they are worded differently the only essential difference between the two amendments before us is the additional clause in the amendment I'm moving the additional reporting clause in amendment 1174 which I believe would ensure transparency process but I would thank the minister for his own comments and clearly his acceptance of the fair rent principle fair rent is a social justice issue a fair rent that takes into account the ability to pay will enable those in deprived areas who wish to do so to contribute to their own food supply it will help community groups to afford to cultivate a plot and in addition local allotment associations can work with local authorities to determine the level of services required and therefore the rent for the site management incorporates the basic principles of community empowerment and partnership working as minister also alluded allotments can contribute to government policy on food, on social justice, health and wellbeing reducing carbon emissions and enhancing the natural environment and I think we're all agreed that rents should be set to enable those in low income to participate and not be excluded and I would urge members to support either amendment I believe the only difference is one has a reporting clause but both capture the essence of fair rent Thank you minister to wind up please Yes To provide a slight insight the concern about the fair rent clause that had existed before was that it hadn't been very precisely defined and there wasn't really an understanding out there or indeed in legislation about what a fair rent would be or how that could be tested which I think emphasises the importance of having quite precise legislation here I would also say that the clause from the section from Aileen McLeod uses the phrase fair rent which makes it very very clear what is being intended and would allow that level of acceptance from the community that I think we really need to have in the allotments legislation so I would hope that members would support amendment 1173 with the commitment to include the reporting clause at stage 3 Thank you, the question is that amendment 1173 be agreed to are we all agreed? Thank you Amendment 1174 in the name of Ken Mackintosh already debated with amendment 1173 Mr Mackintosh to move or not move? Not moved Are the committee content with that? Thank you Can I call amendments 1175 in the name of Aileen McLeod group with amendments 1177 1190 1191 and 1218 Minister to move amendment 1175 and speak to all amendments in the group Please This is a group of minor amendments relating to allotments site regulations, annual reports and the removal of items from an allotment by the tenant 1175 is simply to tidy the drafting and remove repetition 1177 relates to section 735 which provides that local authority regulations may make different provision for different areas or different types of allotments site The amendment removes the words types of so that different regulations can be made for any allotment site 1190 and 1191 are about the annual report which local authorities are required to prepare and publish under section 79 Under subsection 2C a local authority must set out the proportion of the land on each site used for allotments as opposed to communal areas within the site that is not leased from the authority The amendments split the paragraph to ensure that information about the proportion of allotments that are un-let is reported both for sites on which a local authority leases allotments directly and for sites which a local authority leases to one person such as an allotment association and that person then subleases the allotments Section 88 sets out the items a tenant may remove from an allotment before the end of the lease which include any buildings or other structures erected by or on behalf of the tenant amendment 1218 it expands this to also include any buildings or other structures acquired by the tenant I move amendment 1175 and I ask the committee to support it and the other amendments in the group Thank you I see no one else Minister, do you wave here right to mind up? The question is that amendment 1175 be agreed to Are we all agreed? I'm going to call amendment 1256 in the name of Cameron Buchanan the question is that amendment 1256 be agreed to Are we all agreed? No In which case we go to the vote those in favour of amendment 1256 please show and those against those against those against those against those against those against those against those against those against those against the question is disagreed to Can I call amendment 1176 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 1251 Minister, to move formally please The question is that amendment 1176 be agreed to Are we all agreed? Thank you The question is that section 73 be agreed to Are we all agreed? The question is that section 74 be agreed to Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1178 in the name of Aileen McLeod group with the other amendments that we have agreed to Are we all agreed? I'm going to call amendment 1178 in the name of Aileen McLeod group with the other amendments shown on the groupings Minister, could you move amendment 1178 and speak to all amendments in the group please The amendments relate to the circumstances where a local authority proposes to dispose of or change the use of an allotment site it owns or proposes to renounce the lease or change the use of an allotment site it leases The majority of the amendments clarify that these provisions apply to the whole or part of the allotment site The current provisions require a local authority in these circumstances to offer a tenant of an allotment an alternative allotment in the local authority area unless ministers were to be satisfied that this is unnecessary or not reasonably practicable Amendments 1182 and 1188 broaden the duty to include that a tenant may be offered an allotment on the same allotment site so that if only part of a site is disposed of the tenant may be offered an alternative allotment on the same site I ask the committee to support these amendments and I move amendment 1178 Thank you, I see no one else You wave your right some up Minister, thank you The question is that amendment 1178 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes Can I call amendment 1179 in the name of Aileen McLeod group with the other amendments shown on the groupings? Can I draw members' attention to the information shown in the groupings about preemptions in this group? Minister, could you move amendment 1180 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? The question is that amendment 1179 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you Can I call amendment 1180 The allotment community has been very clear that allotment sites should be protected whether they are on land, owned by a local authority or leased by a local authority and this position has been supported through public consultation We have been listening and included provisions in the bill that build on the existing protection against change of use of allotments without ministerial consent that is provided in section 73 of the local government Scotland Act 1973 The provisions in the bill as set out in section 75 and 76 provide protection for allotments against disposal, change of use and where the land is released by a local authority for allotments, renunciation of the lease without the Scottish Minister's consent In addition section 84 provides protection against the resumption of possession of the whole or part of an allotment or an allotment site by a local authority without the Scottish Minister's consent In each case, the Scottish Minister's consent may only be granted where each tenant is to be offered an alternative allotment unless that is unnecessary or not reasonably practicable Amendments 1180 and 1186 in Aileen McLeod's name will in addition require Scottish ministers to consult with the local authority and any other person appearing to have an interest in making any such decision about providing consent That will allow all parties to have their say on any such proposals Amendments 1183 and 1189 clarify the consequences of an authority transferring ownership or renouncing a lease of an allotment site without ministerial consent They provide that such a transfer or renunciation will have no effect without that ministerial consent Cameron Buchanan's amendments in this group would remove the requirement for local authorities to obtain the Scottish Minister's consent before disposing of, changing the use of renouncing the lease of or resuming possession of an allotment site Removing that requirement for ministerial consent would be contrary to everything that allotment holders have told as they want in terms of protecting allotment sites from closure and I would urge the committee to reject those amendments I ask the committee to support amendments 1180 1183, 1186 and 1189 and I move amendment 1180 Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 1257 and other amendments in the group The point of this amendment was to enable local authority to dispose or change of use of an owned allotment site independently without necessarily the consent of the Scottish ministers I think that this would be a productive change for two reasons Firstly, removing the need for ministerial consent prevent the status of allotment sites being struck in a deadlock between opposing local and national administrations Secondly, I think it is likely that local authorities would be less willing to open up new allotment sites if they were for then onwards unable to decide what to do with the land themselves If local authorities were able to decide for themselves what to do with allotment sites as my amendments would achieve this effect would be that more allotment sites are opened up for use With control staying in their hands it is likely that local authorities would be more willing to use the land as an allotment site in the first place Thank you, Stewart Stevenson, please Thank you, committee It is just some technical questions First one of which it would be helpful if the minister could just confirm to the committee that the definition of land does, as it elsewhere in legislation, include water be that standing water, river, ditch, tidal water or any other form Perhaps also whether the legislation the amendment and the legislation in general also will prevent acquisition of allotment land and its removal from being allotment for purposes of way leave the minister of defence or other UK bodies that have rights to acquire land Mr Stevenson, keeping you on your toes for usual Yes, believe it or not the standard legal definition of land does include water and the section 75 that is the subject of our concern here refers to allotment sites which are defined in 69 in this part allotment site means land consisting wholly or partly of allotments now I will consult with the lawyers later to check but I would assume therefore that if that included a stream running through an area that was mainly comprised or indeed wholly or partly of allotments that that would be included as part of the overall allotment site which is the bit that is being operationalised under this Mr Stevenson just to make clear my concern is primarily that the path of things like rivers can vary so nature can modify what is on an allotment site and it's that particular context I have my mind although clearly there could be others I think that is one of those issues I will undertake to go away and reflect on I do actually have an allotment site that is next to body of water in my constituency and where that to flood I'm not sure what the effects would be in legislation but I'm happy to think about it the question is that amendment 1180 be agreed to are we all agreed can I call amendments 1181 1182 and 1183 all in the name of Aileen McLeod and all previously debated can I ask the minister to move amendments 1181 to 1183 on block please moved on block thank you can I ask if any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 1181 to 1183 nope in which case can I ask that members agree 1181 to 1183 are we all agreed thank you can I call amendment 1257 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1180 Mr Buchanan to move or not move I've not moved are the committee content with that the question is that sorry I beg your pardon can I call amendments 18184 1185 1186 1187, 1188 1189 all in the name of Aileen McLeod and all previously debated minister can I ask you to move amendments 1184 to 1189 on block please does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 1184 to 1189 the question is that amendments 1184 to 1189 be agreed to are we all agreed thank you very much can I call amendment 1258 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1180 Mr Buchanan to move or not move not moved are the committee content with that thank you can I call amendment can I ask that section 76 be agreed to thank you can I call amendment 1259 in the name of Cameron Buchanan grouped with amendments 1260 1262 and 1263 Mr Buchanan to move amendment 1259 and to speak to all amendments in the group please this is to replace the word must with may and not make it too prescriptive that's all I really have to say on it thank you anyone else no minister amendment 1259 as was stated would replace the duty for each local authority to prepare a food growing strategy and instead make it an optional power amendments 1260 1262 and 1263 would remove the requirements on local authorities about publishing a food growing strategy and its duty to review the strategy at least every five years I have heard from allotment holders that they have experienced variability in the performance of local authorities during their current duty to provide allotments and that they have found it difficult in some cases to engage with their authority on this issue the duty to prepare and review a food growing strategy is a key way to bring together the allotment community with local authorities and community growers as a means to develop and progress positive partnerships and relationships between all of them in addition during a public consultation in November 2013 there was strong agreement from respondents that one of a local authorities duties should be this to produce a food growing strategy and review it every five years making it an option for each local authority to prepare a food growing strategy will also mean that a local authority will not be required to describe how it intends to increase provision of allotments to meet its duty to take reasonable steps to meet demand I would also add in light of our previous discussions on the power to advance wellbeing there is nothing to stop a local authority right now using its discretion to implement and create a food growing strategy the effective Cameron Buchanan's amendments would therefore be to essentially make no difference to whether the sections were in the bill at all I believe it's important that we make a local authority accountable in relation to this duty remains I ask Mr Buchanan to withdraw amendment 1259 and not move the other amendments in the group Thank you Mr Buchanan to wind up and press her withdrawal please Thank you very much, convener I think that this removes the obligation of local authorities to prepare a food growing strategy I think that it would be very burdensome for them to have it and detract from other duties and I would just make it a possibility rather than a problem rather than a necessity for local authorities to prepare and publish a food growing strategy on the basis that would be burdensome and I think it would be better use of local authorities time and resources to focus on providing allotments and minimise waiting lists rather than compiling documents to comply with a rather centrally imposed duty I'm sure that most people would agree that local authorities should be judged on their ability to provide and maintain allotments rather than their ability to compile a document Should a certain council wish to spend their resources on publishing a food growing strategy it should be a decision for that particular council to make and not that's hence the idea of taking a may rather than the must Thank you very much You take it, I'm moving it You're pressing The question is that amendment 1259 be agreed to Are we all agreed? No Those in favour of amendment 1259 please show and those against amendment 1259 please show Those in favour of amendment 1259 1 Those against 6 The question is disagreed to Can I call amendment 1260 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1259 Mr Buchanan to move or not move? Not moved Are the committee content with that? Yes Thank you Can I call amendment 1261 in the name of Alec Rowley group with amendment 1265 Mr Rowley to move amendment 1261 and speak to both amendments in the group please Thank you, convener People can use an allotment plot to grow healthy food to help recover from physical and mental illness as a family activity with their children or when facing unemployment or retirement or simply because they enjoy growing food and giving it away Allotments offer an opportunity for all those who wish to enjoy the benefits of gardening and working outdoors Amendment 1261 will ensure that it is part of a local authority due to prepare a food growing strategy and identify land which it considers may be used for allotment sites and or community cultivation It will also be required to describe whether and how this will increase provision in areas affected by socio-economic disadvantage in many senses linking it to the local community plans because growing food there are many projects such as healthy eating strategies, healthy eating projects that already exist as part of a health and wellbeing approached by local authorities that would simply mean that local authorities would identify particular areas of disadvantage communities where there is high levels of disadvantage should have access to growing sites and therefore I believe that it is important that local authority identify this as part of their food growing strategy Amendment 1265 will ensure that local authorities pay particular regard to communities where there is a high level of socio-economic disadvantage when looking to promote allotments and in providing training to tenants or potential tenants Again this amendment will ensure that those communities which may benefit the most from allotments but are often the hardest to reach citizens know about allotments and have the skills and training to be able to access those allotments and happy to move amendment 1261 Thank you Mr Rowley Mr Rowley is right to draw the connection between the amendments that were lodged by the Government on community planning and these ones I welcome them that they will continue to develop the theme of targeting or ensuring that the provisions do explicitly address socio-economic disadvantage and inequalities we know that where people have the opportunity to grow their own food it can help to tackle not just food poverty but also issues like physical and mental health and social isolation so these amendments will ensure that local authorities are thinking about the areas which experience socio-economic disadvantage when they are looking at provision both of allotments and other land for community growing growing your own food has benefits for everyone an amendment 1265 will encourage local authorities to promote allotments and provide related training to disadvantaged communities to ensure that they see it as something that is for them as well the lawyers tell me that they may need to look at some of the wording at stage 3 Mr Rowley nods, he knows those sorts of caveats are quite familiar by now would urge the committee to support what are a set of very helpful amendments Mr Rowley, do you want to wind up and press or withdraw? Thank you for the we seem to be in agreement and I think this being part of the community planning approach is the right one and we'll see what happens at stage 3 so happy to move The question is that amendment 1261 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you, can I call amendment 1262 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1259 Mr Buchanan to move or not move Not moved Are the committee content with that? Thank you The question is that section 77 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you Can I call amendment 1263 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1259 Mr Buchanan to move or not move Are the committee content with that? Yes Can I ask that section 78 be agreed to? Thank you Can I call amendment 1190 1191 1192, 1193 and 1194 all in the name of Aileen McLeod and all previously debated Minister, could you move the amendment on block Thank you Does any member have an objection to a single question being put on those amendments? In which case, the question is that amendments 1190 to 1194 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes Thank you very much The question is that section 79 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes The question is that section 80 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1195 in the name of Aileen McLeod group with amendments 1196 1197 and 1264 Minister, to move amendment 1195 and to speak to all amendments in the group, please Thank you Section 81 of the bill as stands allows a person representing the interests of allotment tenants such as an allotments association delegates management functions of an allotment site to them All the amendments in this group are minor adjustments to that section 1195 clarifies the allotment sites to which the section applies amendment 1197 is a consequential amendment to remove duplication 1196 makes clear that the person applying for delegation of a management of a site should represent all or a majority of the tenants Turning to Cameron Buchanan Further provision of section 81 enables a local authority to agree to or refuse the request If the local authority refuses the request it must provide reasons for its decision The amendment lodged by Mr Buchanan would require that the reasons for refusing the request must be quote valid unquote It is not necessary to include the word valid local authorities are already under a common law duty to act reasonably and make rational decisions or face the risk of judicial review Both the taking of decisions about delegation of management and the duty to give reasons must be exercised reasonably The offering of invalid reasons would be quite a strong example of not acting reasonably In addition it is unclear who it is that would determine what constitutes a valid reason for refusing a request The inclusion of valid in this context is therefore unnecessary but also creates a lack of clarity I would ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw the amendment and I would ask the committee to support the amendments in the name of Aileen McLeod and I move amendment 1195 Thank you Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 1264 and other amendments in the group Thank you In view of what the minister has said my reason for this is another probing amendment because I wanted to see what the if the local authority is going to send applicant a decision notice setting up the reasons for refusal that was really my reason for it and I would like just to be a clarification on that Please As I say if the local authority were to offer invalid reasons or reasons that were not worthy of respect or were unreasonable then there would be consequences for that so consider the word valid to be unnecessary Thank you The question is that amendment 1195 be agreed to are we all agreed Thank you Can I call amendment 1196 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 1195 Minister to move formally please Moved The question is that amendment 1196 be agreed to are we all agreed Can I call amendment 1197 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 1195 Minister to move formally please Moved The question is that amendment 1197 be agreed to are we all agreed Can I call amendment 1264 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1195 Mr Buchanan to move or not move Not moved Are the committee content with that? Thank you The question is that section 81 be agreed to are we all agreed Can I call amendment 1265 in the name of Alec Rowley already debated with amendment 1261 Mr Rowley to move or not move please The question is that amendment 1265 be agreed to are we all agreed Thank you The question is that section 82 be agreed to are we all agreed Can I call amendment 1198 in the name of Aileen McLeod in a group on its own Minister to ask you to speak and move the amendment please Amendment 1198 lodged in the name of Dr McLeod introduced a new provision in the bill The amendment allows tenants of an allotment site or their representative to request the use of local authority premises free of charge The premises may be used solely for holding meetings to discuss allotment site related business The amendment is a restatement of section 15 of the Allotments Scotland Act 1892 with some amendments The amendment is being brought forward in the name of Dr McLeod as initial views suggested that allotment holders like other community organisations should pay for the use of a local authority space However, given that allotment holders have no means of raising revenue for the higher of such spaces this provision is being brought forward as an amendment I move amendment 1198 Mr Wilson, please Minister, just see the provision in terms of what is proposed here because what we have in many local authorities the premises that would have normally been used by allotment growers have now been either transferred over to allio control or other control outwith direct control of the local authority and it is just to ask whether or not the definition of local authority premises would include premises such as in the local authority area that I live in most of the schools have been transferred to either a culture allio or a leisure allio which incur charges for most organisations and are not directly as local authority would argue controlled by the local authority at the time that they are actually operated by those allios so can you seek clarification from the minister on any costs that may be incurred for the use of those premises where they are practical and close to where the allotment are based on? Anyone else wish to enter the debate? Took us a farewell to get to my old friend the Allotment Scotland Act 1892 today. Minister, do you want to wind up please? Yes, in response to the question I will have to examine it but as with my statement in previous committee session on including allios I certainly would want something that was recognisably and demonstrably a community building that was local authority controlled however it did that to be included within the bill so we will check the definition and if the definition does need expanded we will do so. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 1198 to be agreed to are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1199 in the name of Aileen McLeod group with the other amendments shown in the groupings? Can I draw members' attention to the information shown in the groupings about preemptions in this group? Minister to move amendment 11199 and speak to all amendments in the group please. This group of amendments is to clarify the provisions in section 83 and 84. Section 83 1 sets out the circumstances in which a local authority may terminate the lease of an allotment or an allotment site. Amendments 1199, 1200 and 1200 clarify that these circumstances override any provision in the lease to the contrary about termination of the lease and that these are the only circumstances in which a lease can be terminated. Section 84 2 sets out the circumstances in which a local authority may resume possession of the whole or part of an allotment or allotment site and requires that the Scottish ministers must give consent to any such resumption. Amendments 1202 and 1203 clarify that these circumstances override any provision in the lease to the contrary about resumption and that these are the only circumstances in which possession may be resumed. Amendments 1204 and 1205 have the effect of providing that it is the giving of notice of resumption to which the Scottish ministers must consent rather than the resumption itself. I would ask the committee to agree to these clarifying amendments and I move amendment 1199. Thank you. As no one else, you wave your right to wind up minister. The question is that amendment 1199 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Can I call amendment 1200 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated? Minister, to formally move please. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 1200 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 12001 already debated? Minister, move formally please. Moved. The question is that amendment 12001 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Can I call amendment 1266 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1180? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content with that? Thank you. The question is that section 83 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1202 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 1199? Minister, to move formally please. Moved. The question is that amendment 1203 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1204 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 11199? Can I remind members that if amendment 1204 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 1203 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 1204. I cannot call amendment 127. Minister, to move formally please. Moved. The question is that amendment 1204 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 1204 please show. Those against. Those in favour. Six, those against. One, the question is agreed to. Can I call amendment 1205 in the name of Aileen McLeod already debated with amendment 11199? Minister, to move formally please. Moved. The question is that amendment 1205 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Can I call amendment 1268 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1180? Minister, to move or not to move please. Moved. The question is that amendment 1268 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 1268 please show. Those against. Those in favour. The question is disagreed to. The question is that section 84 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Can I call amendment 1206 in the name of Aileen McLeod with the other amendments shown in the groupings? Minister, to move amendment 1206 please and speak to all amendments in the group. This group of amendments is to clarify the provisions of sections 85 and 86. Section 85 deals with the arrangements for a notice of termination where a local authority leases an allotment site from another person and receives notice of termination of that lease. Amendment 1206 clarifies that section 85 applies where the local authority leases an allotment site and has granted a sub-lease either to an allotment association for the whole site or to an individual for an allotment. Amendments 1207 and 1208 clarify that the notice received by the local authority may relate to the termination of either the whole or part of its lease. Amendment 1209 and 12010 set out that the affected sub-tenants should be notified of the date of termination and that their sub-leases are terminated on that date. Section 86 deals with arrangements for notice of termination where the local authority leases a site to a tenant such as an allotment association who represents the interests of sub-tenants. Amendments 1211, 1212 and 1213 clarify the circumstances in which section 86 applies that the notice may relate to either the whole or part of an allotment site. Amendment 1214 sets out that in those circumstances the tenant must notify each sub-tenant of the date the whole or part of the lease is terminated and that their sub-lease is terminated on that date. I agree to those clarifying amendments and I move amendment 1206. Thank you very much. I think we will go straight to the question then. The question is that amendment 1206 be agreed to or are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 1207, 1208, 1209 and 12010 all in the name of Aileen McLeod and all previously debated. Minister could ask you to move amendments 1207 to 12010 on block, please. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object if I put one question? No. In which case? The question is that amendments 1207 to 12010 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. The question is that section 85 be agreed to or are we all agreed? Thank you. I agree to those clarifying amendments 1207 to 12010 and 12010 all in the name of Aileen McLeod and all previously debated. Minister, would you like to move those amendments on block, please? Moved on block. Does any member object to a single question being put in the amendments? The question is that amendments 12011 to 12014 are agreed to are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 86 Come on. Thank you. Amendment 1215, in the name of Aileen McLeod, in a group on its own. Minister to move and speak to the amendment, please. I reacquaint you with your old friend, the Allotment Scotland Act of 1892. This amendment restates, with some amendment, section 7.3 of that act, which prohibits the subletting of allotments by a tenant. The amendment expands that provision to include the prohibition of assignation of an allotment dwi'n cael ei fodfotau o'r byddwyr, ac y cyfnodd co reciprocal yn dwyfodol o ddiweddol gwaith cyd- Pearl пожirol yn ddiweddol, mewn ddiweddol i ddoddiadwydau mewn ddiweddol. Felly, mae'n gweld i hynny i gael dwiwrs. Felly, mae'n gweld i gael dwiwyr i ddoddiadwyd, a'r bydwyr i ddiweddol yn ddiweddol. Felly, mae'n gweld i'r wych i'r wych i gyfnodd ddefnyddio ar gael i chi awgwyddiadol, a ddim yn cael ei gael i'w petgwyddoch chi'n ddechrau. Ymgyrchedd 125, nesaf arblwad iddynt y dda wedi'i gael i ddechrau'r lleiddiadol, ac os ymgyrchu ymateb ar Steve Feirgin. Ymgyrchedd 125 yn cael ei ddynt. amendment 1216, in the name of Aileen McLeod, has already debated with amendment 1251, minister to me, formulae, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 1216 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1269, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1251? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move, please? Not moved. Are the committee content with that? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 1217, in the name of Aileen McLeod, has already debated with amendment 1251, minister to me, formulae, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 1217 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 87 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1218, in the name of Aileen McLeod, already debated with amendment 1175, minister to me, formulae, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 1218 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 88 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1219, in the name of Aileen McLeod, group with amendments 1220, 1221, 1270 and 1222, minister to me, amendment 1219 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you. The amendments in this group under Dr McLeod's name are minor and technical amendments. In 1991, as it stands, provides that if a local authority resumes possession of an allotment or part of an allotment, then the local authority is required to compensate the tenant for loss of any crop by the tenant as a result of the resumption. The period of notice required for resumption in section 84 of the bill is at least three months. Amendments 1219 and 1220 adjust the provisions to provide that it is the local authority who gives notice or who has received notice of termination of their own lease of the site that is liable to pay compensation to the tenant. This is to ensure that it is the local authority with whom the tenant has the lease who are responsible for paying compensation, even if the local authority has granted a lease outwith their own area. Amendments 1221 and 1222 are just minor corrections, and I would ask the committee to support the amendments in Aileen McLeod's name. Amendments 1270 lodged by Cameron Buchanan, however, would provide that a local authority would not be liable to pay a tenant compensation for loss of crops if the tenant had a reasonable opportunity to remove their crop prior to the land being resumed. I would argue that the three-month notice period specified in the bill is a reasonable opportunity if the crop is harvested or ready for harvest at the right time. Amendment 1221, however, fails to take account of the seasonal cycle of food production on allotments. Some crops may have just been put in the ground at the time of the notice being served, and so may not be ready for harvest once the notice period is up. Additionally, fruit trees are normally planted in late autumn, early winter. If there is no ground frost, it would not yield a crop until the summer, so a period of notice given at point during the planting season and even into early spring would mean that a tenant has made the investment in the tree but suffers a loss of crop. Section 91 requires Scottish ministers to make regulations about compensation of loss of crops following resumption, and Scottish ministers must consult before making those regulations. The regulations must make provision about the procedure for compensating for loss of crops and an assessment of the amount of compensation for which the authority is liable. That provides safeguards both for the local authority and tenants and will be an important piece of legislation to get right. I ask Cameron Buchanan not to move amendment 1270 and I move amendment 1219. Thank you very much, Mr Buchanan, to speak to amendment 1270 and other amendments in the group, please. In view of the minister's comments, I would not wish to press this amendment. I have got to deal with that at a later stage. Anyone else? Minister, just wind up, and you may be right. The question is amendment 1219 at 10 at唯id 5. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I would call amendment 1220 in the name of Aileen McLeod was discussed with amendment 1219. Minister, to move formulae, please. Moved. The question is, is amendment 120 agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 890 agreed to. I would call amendment 1221 in the name of Aileen McLeod and it's made a deal with amendment 1219. Ie. Mynd i'n gael i'n sgwrth fyf yn fwy. Rwy'n gael i'n sgwrth fyf yn fwy. Ie. The question is that section 90 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 127-0, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1219? Rwy'n gael i'n sgwrth fyf yn fwy, rwy'n gael i'n sgwrth fyf yn fwy, please? Rwy'n gael i'n sgwrth fyf yn fwy. Are the committee content with that? The question is that section 91 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 1, 222, in the name of Aileen McLeod, already debated with amendment 1219. Minister to move 4. Will you please? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1, 222 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 1223, in the name of the minister, agreed with amendment 1224. Minister to move amendment 1223 and to speak to both amendments in the group, please. I'm delighted to move these two amendments in my name. 1, 2, 2, 3 is a new regulation making power enabling ministers to require Scottish public authorities, including the Scottish Government, to promote and support and facilitate the participation of members of the public in the decisions and activities of the authority, including in the allocation of its resources, which we believe would support participatory budgeting in particular. We know that involving people and communities in making decisions helps to build community capacity and also helps the public sector to identify local needs and target budgets more effectively. We know that decisions taken closer to people by the participation of people affected are better decisions. It is clear that when people know that they have a genuine say in an issue that matters, they will get involved. Our job is to make it clear that they know their voice matters. This has been a big concern for the committee and it has been a big concern for me. How to give people and communities more opportunity to have their say in the decisions that matter to them? How to make that objective of community empowerment real? The intention is that the new power will ensure that participatory activity takes place and the associated guidance will drive the quality and depth of that participatory activity over time. I wanted any legislative solution to have the flexibility to build, change and develop over time. On the different functions, budgets and structures of local and public authorities, I knew that having a single approach would not endure. The amendment, through regulations, will not only provide that promotion and facilitation of participation takes place by Scotland's public bodies but that we can refine the regulations so that participation is relevant for the activities of each public body in their distinct role. In addition, ministers, through the regulations, will be able to require public bodies to prepare and publish a report describing the steps that they have taken to promote and facilitate participation. The amendment provides that public bodies will have to have regard to any guidance on this that is issued by Scottish ministers. Again, the national standards for community engagement, which we have committed to refreshing and renewing, will be prominent in this process, but we will also need to develop guidance on other aspects, including participatory budgeting, about which I have spoken many occasions and I am a terrific enthusiast for, and how public bodies can ensure that the decisions that they take on budgets and grants can be developed to encompass meaningful participation. This is going to be a challenge for public bodies. Local government, however, and other public authorities, do increasingly use a wide range of community engagement activities to seek views on activities, plans and service delivery. I know that there has been a tremendous interest in the Scottish Government's offer of training and support for participatory budgeting exercises, with more than half of Scotland's councils taking up that offer and some in the next year to be allocated through participatory budgeting methods that will be, potentially, if all come through, running into the millions. The range and degree of participation from people and communities can vary very considerably. This new power will lead to greater consistency and improve the quality of that participation over time. It is not going to happen from day one, but it is going to happen. The Parliament will continue to have a role to play as we move forward with this agenda. Amendment 1224 provides that any regulations laid under this will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I look forward to developing and implementing this, which is going to be, for me, a major strand of the community empowerment agenda. I hope that the committee will be keen to work with us, and I move amendment 1223. Mr Rowley, please. I am happy to support the amendment. If you look at participatory budgets, it is about having some meaning to them that people can identify with. Some of the amendments—hopefully, we can have a discussion in the coming weeks— as we move forward to stage 3. Some of the amendments around locality planning complement the idea. If you look at a local authority budget, children's services and education will take up 50-odd per cent of the budget. If you then take health and social care, you can be up to 70-odd per cent. If we participate in budgets, we talk about 1 per cent. If 1 per cent of the local authority budget was down at that level and there is a formula in place to get it down at that level, more people will take power if they are able to identify their priorities and then do the budget to finance their local priorities. The thing that often concerns me about the participatory budgets—I know that there are some good examples, but I have looked at some—it is a bit like going to ASDA and when you come out, you get a wee green token and there are three pots and you stick it into it. It has got to be a bit a lot more than that. I think that by the amendments previously, if we were able to work with that, that would then enhance that. People would be able to have not only the ability to set their local priorities but with this, be able to finance some of them and so I welcome it. I would say bravo, minister. I think that a lot of folk out there will be applauding this and certainly that committee will continue to scrutinise this as it moves forward. Would you like to wind up, minister? Just briefly to reflect on a point that Mr Rowley just made, I am aware of the supermarket exit form of deciding on charitable donations and it is noticeable that there are certain causes that will do better, but that is not a participative process. It does not bring people together, have that discussion and have the cases put forward. It is quite a shallow form of engagement and what we want to get past for public decision making is shallow forms of engagement to very much deeper forms of participation. He is also right to say that there is a great deal that is a statutory requirement. We do not want a participatory budgeting process where a community comes together and decides that they do not want to spend any money on having a school anymore because clearly there are some things that are obligations, but it is on those discretionary spends on what they prioritise for maintenance or expansion. That is the area where participatory budgeting offers real opportunities to ensure that things are targeted to local needs. Do you agree that, in terms of participatory budgeting, communities need to know in terms of their larger resources—you mentioned using the example of a school—that it might be helpful if communities in the new discussions with local authorities and other agencies were aware of the bigger spend items and how they impacted on those communities and where the participatory budgeting element of the budgets could be better utilised to complement those services rather than totally ignoring the fact that many in communities do not understand or do not realise where the bulk of local government and other agencies' resources go into supporting the community and delivering services for those communities? I totally agree that people need to realise how the spend they would be deciding on relate to everything else, and ultimately you would hope that that would result in everybody pulling in the same direction. I just think that that offers a tremendous opportunity to re-empower people to take that spirit of democratic renewal that is abroad in this country and give it some real teeth so that people can not just go along and be consulted on something, but actually participate in the decision making directly at a completely different level of involvement. I am glad that the committee has been so enthusiastic and I move the press. The question is that amendment 1223 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 1271 in the name of Cameron Buchanan and agree in its own? Mr Buchanan, to move and speak to your amendment please. I absolutely agree that the Rating Authority should have the interests of persons liable to pay council tax set by the authority before reducing or emitting non-domestic rates. As it stands, however, this clause I think suggests that any loss of income due to non-domestic rate cuts would have to be offset from other income raised by the authority. What my amendment was seeking to do is to clarify that before reducing or emitting non-domestic rates, a Rating Authority should have regard to its own expenditure, income and financial sustainability. In other words, Rating Authorities could accommodate any change in income due to non-domestic rate cuts by reviewing either their expenditure or their income. Could you move please? Thank you very much. Amendment 1271 would add to the test in the bill, which requires that a council have regard to the interests of persons liable to pay council tax, as well as wider statutory financial obligations that councils have. The amendment would make explicit that councils have to have regard to their income and expenditure when exercising the local rates relief power. I think that councils would do so as a matter of course given the framework and statutory obligations that they operate under, but I would be content to support the amendment to reinforce the point in this section of law. Mr Buchanan, do you want to wind up and press or withdraw, please? I thank the minister for agreeing and I would press my amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1271 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1087 in the name of the minister and a group in its own? Minister, to move and speak to the amendment, please. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that where there are powers for ministers to amend the lists of bodies subject to the provisions of the bill, those powers should be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure. I agree that changes to the bodies included could make a significant change to the scope of the bill's powers, so I am happy to make that change to the procedure to be used. 1087 provides that changes to the list of public service authorities in relation to participation requests and changes to the list of relevant authorities in relation to asset transfer requests will be subject to affirmative procedure. It also provides for affirmative procedure where the Scottish Minister specifies a relevant authority as subject to local authority review of its decisions in the first instance rather than ministerial appeal. Members will remember that power was discussed last week as a measure to assist the inclusion of allios in asset transfer. I move amendment 1087 and ask members to support it. I invite the minister to take away for further consideration and perhaps discussion with colleagues. There is a matter of good practice when Governments amend lists by secondary legislation, they should consider publishing in the update the entire amended list. There are instances where lists have been amended more than 20 times and it is all but impossible to work out where the list looks like, as there is no central list of the lists to which the reference can be made. I do not ask for a commitment to this stage apart from that you will take it away and consider it, minister. I will take it away, I will consider it and if I am still the minister when the First Amendment comes forward I will make sure to put it into practice as well. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1087 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1038 in the name of the minister? I already debated with amendment 1015 on day 1 on 4 March. Minister, to move formulae, please. The question is that amendment 1038 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is the biggest skipping back ever in these regards for us anyway. Can I call amendment 1224 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 1223. Minister, to move formulae, please. Moved. The question is that amendment 1224 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1071 in the name of Alec Rowley? Already debated with amendment 1043 again on day 1. Alec Rowley, to move or not move? Thank you. The question is that amendment 1071 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 97 and 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1225 in the name of Alec McLeod, group with amendments 1226, 1227 and 1228? Minister, to move amendment 1225 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Well, just to stop other antiquated acts feeling lonely with the convener's love of the 1892 act, this will deal with the 1911, 1939, 1948 and 1958 acts that have various references to allotments. As you might imagine, we have to update quite a few references in previous legislation as a result of the bill. Schedule 4 sets out minor and consequential amendments to other legislation, and amendment 1225 inserts into that schedule additional required consequential amendments, which have been identified since the bill was introduced. Schedule 5 sets out existing legislation to be repealed as a consequence of the provisions of the bill, and amendments 1226, 1227 and 1228 insert into schedule 5 additional repeals required to existing legislation, which have been identified since the bill was introduced. I move amendment 1225. Thank you. I see no hands, minister. You wave your right to wind up. The question is that amendment 1225 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 1039, 1040 and 1041, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated on day 1? Minister, can I invite you to move amendments 1039 to 1041 on block? Thank you very much. Does anybody object to a single question being put on these? The question is that amendments 1039 to 1041 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Before I put the question on schedule 4, I remind members that we are agreeing to schedule 4 as amended by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, as well as amended by the committee today. The amendments agreed to by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee were amendments 38, 39, 40, 41, 88, 46, 47 and 57. The question is that schedule 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1226, 1227, 1228, in the name of Aileen McLeod, debated earlier today, and amendment 1042, in the name of Marko Biagi, debated on day 1? Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 1226 to 1028 and amendment 1042 on block, please? Thank you. Does anybody object to a single question being put on these amendments? No. The question is that amendments 1226 to 1028 and 1042 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Again, before putting the question on schedule 5, I remind members that we are agreeing to schedule 5 as amended by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, as well as amended by the committee today. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee agreed to one amendment to schedule 5. That was amendment 42. The question is that schedule 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that sections 99 and 100 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We have no amendments to the long title to consider, but I remind members that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee did agree to one amendment to the long title, amendment 43. We are agreeing to the long title as amended by that amendment. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. As amended at stage 2, print of the bill will be available from tomorrow morning. Stage 3 amendments may also be lodged from tomorrow, although we do not yet know when stage 3 will be. I thank everyone for their participation today. I suspend and we move into private session. I would appeal to those folks who are leaving to do so quickly, please.