 The next item of business this afternoon is stage 3 proceedings on the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2. That is SP Bill 52A revised, the marshaled list, SP Bill 52AML and the correction slip to the marshaled list, which was issued yesterday. The groupings, that is SP Bill 52AG. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division thereafter will be 32 seconds. Afterwards, for the rest of the bill, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after each debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1, setting of national outcomes, procedure consultation etc. I call amendment 27, in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, which is grouped with the other amendments shown on the groupings. I point out that if amendment 1, 4, 7 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 29 and 30. If amendment 40 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 1, 4, 9 in both cases because of pre-emption. I ask the minister to move amendment 27 and speak to all of the amendments in the group. I am very glad to be starting proceedings this afternoon. Part 1 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare a set of national outcomes that describe the kind of Scotland we all want to live in and to regularly and publicly measure progress towards those outcomes. At stage 2, we agreed the importance of the scrutiny role of the Scottish Parliament and of strengthening public consultation. That is retained at the heart of my amendments. However, the bill currently requires two separate processes to be undertaken in the setting and reviewing of those national outcomes. This would be convoluted, repetitive and unclear, involving considerable double consultation of communities and Parliament. My amendments seek to provide for a single process. They also balance the valuable scrutiny role of this Parliament against the Government's own responsibilities for the Scottish public sector and strengthen the public consultation process that we all want to see being strong. In consulting with the Scottish Parliament, we must reflect the separation of powers between a Government responsible for setting its own strategic direction and a Parliament responsible for holding that Government to account for its progress. That is why we consider that the provision in the bill of a 40-day period for the Parliament to be consulted on the draft national outcomes is an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. That is the same period of time as would be afforded by the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation, for example. Therefore, amendments 27 and 34 restore provision for the national outcomes to be determined by the Scottish ministers, rather than by regulation subject to the so-called superaffirmative procedure. I agree with Alex Rowley's point at stage 2 that we must involve all communities across Scotland in setting the national outcomes. Amendments 29 and 35 therefore strengthen the consultation process by requiring the Scottish ministers to consult persons who represent communities when determining and reviewing the national outcomes. Community is defined by amendments 33 and 37, including communities based on common interest, identity or geography to ensure that very inclusive consultation that I referred to. Alex Rowley's amendment 150 also seeks to improve the definition of community, but linking the definition of community to postcode could impact negatively on certain communities such as gypsy travellers, communities of interest or communities based on social or cultural identities. It also excludes those who only work in an area rather than living in that area. Singling out individuals or groups when it comes to the national outcomes, however important those groups are, or inadvertently excluding others, is at odds with the principle of participatory democracy. Every person or community has as much right as the next to take part in debating and shaping the Scotland that we want to live in, that we do live in and that my amendments will ensure that that is the case. Amendments 30 and 36 reflect the discussions at stage 2 and require Scottish ministers to lay an explanatory document containing details of the public consultation when determining and reviewing the national outcomes. Amendments 41 and 133 make minor consequential amendments. As the bill stands at the moment, Scottish ministers must publish a report every two years. I believe that this is a retrograde step because one of the strengths of the current reporting system is that the Scotland performs website provides an up-to-the-minute picture of progress. Statistics are published there as and when they become available. We have also responded to the needs of this Parliament by publishing a Scotland performs update as part of the draft budget process. Future Parliaments may find that information more useful at other times than those specified by the amendments in question. To continue, amendments 38 and 39 reinstate provision for Scottish ministers to prepare and publish reports at such times as they consider appropriate. Amendment 40 removes the requirement to consult on the reports as any report on progress would be a factual statement based on evidence. Amendments 28, 31 and 32 respond to a point that Stuart Stevenson made in his own inestimable style at stage 2. They make it clear that, while the Scottish Parliament and its corporate body are excluded from the duty to have regard to the national outcomes when carrying out their functions, the effect of their functions is not excluded from the determination of the national outcomes. I ask Alec Rowley to not move the amendments in his name, and I move amendment 27. I now call Alec Rowley to speak to amendment 147 and other amendments in the group. I would like to move amendments 147 and other amendments in my name within the group. First, in the time that I have, I have acknowledged that the role that Marco Bagi has played since becoming minister in this bill has demonstrated a real willingness to work with others across this chamber. As a result of that, I think that what we have today is a better bill, and I would like to acknowledge that. In my amendments, I would like to say that, in terms of the national outcomes, they provide for a greater consideration and scrutiny by this Parliament. My proposals require that Scottish Ministers to publish and lay national outcomes with the Parliament for 60 days. During this period, Scottish Ministers must consult with the public, including specified individuals and groups. The draft national outcomes cannot be laid for approval until Scottish Ministers also lay an explanation of that consultation. Any representations received and changes made to the regulations must then approve the national outcomes. I believe that that will engage the public much more in terms of national outcomes. It is important that this Parliament is able to scrutinise national outcomes and scrutinise the progress. It is also crucial—we have not seen it in the past—that national outcomes are linked to the budget and we can see where the finances of this Government are being spent to deliver the national outcomes. I can also say that, in terms of the Minister and his concerns in terms of reference to individuals eligible to vote in elections, what I am saying is that individuals normally resident in a local authority area. This seeks to address any concerns about prisoners, refugees, asylum seekers and homeless potentially being excluded. The Minister also expressed concern about singling out children and young people and organisations working for them. I would say to the Minister that this is deliberate and it is because they are below voting age and therefore often overlooked, not for reasons of specific interest. Indeed, the groups listed in section 1 are intended to represent as wide a possible cross-section of people who live and work within Scotland. My intention is to move those amendments today but also to acknowledge that the bill has made great progress. I think that that is down to the willingness of the Minister to work with others in moving the bill forward. I have more members than anticipated wishing to contribute to this. I am not sure if I can call everyone but ask members to keep their remarks short. Cameron Buchanan to be followed by Mark McDonald. We have concerns with amendments 27, 34 and 133, because allowing Scottish ministers to determine the national outcomes would remove, we think, crucial elements of scrutiny, participation and collaboration. A bill entitled community empowerment should place more power in communities' hands rather than allow Scottish ministers to determine independently what the nation's priorities should be. If we are to genuinely empower communities, this should be as involved as possible in determining the national outcomes. However, amendments 27, 34 and 133 would centralise power in ministers' hands by removing the need for the Scottish Parliament's approval as well as at a stage of public consultation. On a similar note, it is apparent that amendments 38, 39 and 40 advance centralisation. To ensure that government is held to account for its actions, its progress towards national outcomes should be scrutinised on a regular basis. However, amendments 38, 39 and 40 would allow the Scottish Government to publish reports on their progress only when they see fit without the need for any public consultation. Removing the regular involvement of the Parliament and public in assessing progress towards our national outcomes would shield the central Government from public scrutiny, which I think is fundamentally contradictory to the principle of community empowerment. As for Alec Rowley's amendment 147, removing provisions requiring consultation before determining the national outcomes, this raises particular concerns about public participation. We consider that community empowerment should improve participation on a wide scale, and I think amendment 147 would threaten this. Mark McDonald, to be followed by Ken Macintosh. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I feel Cameron Buchanan may have misinterpreted the amendments that the Scottish Government has laid, because he is implying in his remarks that somehow ministers will decide what the national outcomes shall be and that shall be the case. The entire purpose of the amendments that are being laid by the minister is about the consultation process that will take place in relation to those national outcomes. There will be a consultation that will take place from which the results of which will assist ministers in determining what the national outcomes should be. Indeed, amendment 30 specifically says in consulting the Scottish Parliament. There will be consultation not just with the public but also with the Parliament in relation to what the national outcomes shall be. I hope that that perhaps gives some pause for Cameron Buchanan and might make him more likely to support those amendments when they come to the vote. In terms of the thrust of what the minister is putting forward, I think that it is entirely correct that we avoid the impression that could be created that certain groups are not being looked at in terms of consultation or their views might not be considered in terms of consultation because they do not feature within the text of the bill. I know that Alex Rowley said that the list that is defined in the legislation would give as wide a scope as possible, but I think that there may still be groups within society who may look at any category not see themselves defined within it. I think that removing that opportunity for people to feel that they are not prioritised within the legislation I think is a fair way to proceed. I hope that the members will back the minister's amendments and I hope that Alex Rowley will reconsider pressing his. I would like to speak in favour of the amendments in the name of my colleague Alex Rowley. I also urge the Parliament not to remove the amendments that were agreed by the committee at stage 2. I echo my colleague's comment that this has been a very consensual process in this bill and has been improved because of that. I am sure that all members will be relieved to hear on a few areas of disagreement this afternoon, which makes this particular section a bit more disappointing that the Government should use its majority to overturn the committee's work. At stage 1, the committee agreed unanimously that the engagement and consultation on the national outcomes should be enshrined in legislation. At stage 2, the amendments moved by my colleague Alex Rowley did exactly that, suggesting that they are laid before the Parliament for 60 days. The minister said in his comments that the regulations could exclude groups such as gypsy travellers and others from being involved, but the point is that it does not. It might do if the Government allowed it to, but it does not. It is a baseline, a floor rather than a ceiling. I would urge the minister to think again about his approach. There was one potential restriction, and that is that individuals registered to vote could be restrictive, and because of that, Alex Rowley has put down an amendment that changes that to individuals normally resident in the local authority area. That would avoid unintentionally restricting those who we consulted with. It strikes me that the intention of the committee at stage 1 has been captured by the amendments that Alex Rowley moved at stage 2 that were agreed by committee. There is much disagreement with the minister. If we cannot agree on Alex Rowley's amendments, Labour-side will be supporting the Government's amendments 30, which are a sort of watered-down version. However, I urge the minister to think again about removing all the agreements at this stage. I would emphasise that this approach has been agreed by Oxfam, Barnardo's, Poverty Alliance and many other new voluntary sector. I urge the members to support Alex Rowley's amendments. Many thanks. I will call Alex Ferguson to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm, as long as both are very brief. I will be very brief, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I wonder whether the minister in summing up could allay my fears on two counts. In relation to amendment 28, can he confirm that, if passed, this would allow the Scottish Parliament to operate entirely independently of national outcomes? In relation to amendment 33, can I just ask what grounds he wishes to define community to include common interest, identity or geography in this part of the bill, although that is not the description used in other parts? Malcolm Chisholm, I will be very brief. The minister did give an explanation for amendment 32, but it still reads rather strangely. I think that it probably does merit further explanation because anyone outside reading that would think that we were setting ourselves above the national outcomes. I am sure that that is not the intention, but I am slightly concerned about what might be read into amendment 32. Many thanks. Can I ask the minister to now wind up, please? Thank you. Let me begin almost from the end and work back. Amendments 32 and 38 that are referring to the Scottish Parliament make it clear that, while they are excluded from the duty to have regard to the national outcomes, their functions are not excluded from the determination of the national outcomes themselves. I agree that that is a difficult distinction and perhaps not one that immediately jumps out, but the idea was to avoid accidentally bringing the Scottish Parliament in its scrutiny functions and other functions that should be protected from Government decisions into the bill unnecessarily. To go to the point that was raised by Alex Ferguson on amendment 33, communities have been defined in different places in different parts of the bill. The member sits on the rural affairs committee, which has scrutinised the section, the part of the bill that focuses on land reform. That community is generally defined in a geographical way, but in other parts of the bill for asset transfer participation requests, each has had a distinct definition of community within it to capture different things in different contexts, including communities of interest. In this case, we feel that in terms of working out the views of people in Scotland, taking the temperature, understanding the interests of the people of Scotland, communities of interest, are reasonable to include in this case, which is rather different from the rather legalistic mechanism of compulsory purchase and community takeover that is in the part on land reform. The issue that I have with Ken Macintosh is that I actually do not have many issues here. We are actually on largely the same page. The committee recommended that a parliamentary process should be enshrined in legislation, and this is what we are both trying to do. Both systems will have 40 days before Parliament formally considering the Alec Rowley position is that there should be 60 days as well, but it is standard for any Scottish Government consultation that, on the average, the typical expectation would be 90 days for public scrutiny. In that period, there would be nothing to stop parliamentary committees considering the issues, business managers, scheduling debates—these are all options that are open. It would, in fact, under our approach, see that longer period of consultation give wider opportunity for the Parliament to consult in that period. It was also highlighted that there needed to be explanation. Amendment 36 is dealing with that. Perhaps Cameron Buchanan and I simply differ on whether outcomes should be an executive or legislative function, and that would be the point of difference there. Lastly, reporting happens at the moment whenever the statistics are available. If you have determined outcomes and statistics are being published, statistics get published on a weekly basis—almost—there were statistics out today, and that is a day-by-day reporting against the outcomes that you have set. If there are outcomes set in one context and you have statistics coming out, that produces a real-time response. To restrict it to reporting purely on the set timescales that are set out would be counterproductive to the desire to maintain that as a living document that continually updates. In conclusion, I think that we are very close to each other and where we want to be. We want a parliamentary process. We have a parliamentary process here. We want a participative process out in the country as well, so that everybody can take part in determining these national outcomes. I would hope that people in this Parliament would support the amendments in my name. Thank you very much. Before I call a question, can I point out to the Parliament that we are already way over time and we are only on the first group? That is going to have implications for the rest of the afternoon. I will ask for brevity from everyone, please, for the rest of the afternoon. Question is, amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Prior to that, there will be a five-minute suspension because this is the first division of the stage. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 27. This is a 32nd division. Members should please cast their votes now. Order, please. The result of the vote on amendment 27 is yes, 65, no, 54. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 28, in the name of the minister, which has already been debated, with amendment 27, and I ask the minister to move formally. Question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Please vote now, 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 28 is yes, 70, no, 36. There were 15 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 147, in the name of Alec Riley, already debated with amendment 27. I remind members that, if amendment 147 is agreed to, then I cannot call amendments 29 and 30. Alec Riley, to move or not move, please. Question is, that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. Please vote now, 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 147 is, as follows, yes, 51, no, 69. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendments 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, all in the name of the minister for local government community empowerment, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 29 to 33 on block. Do any member object to a single question being put on amendments 29 to 33? Before I call these amendments, I am amended to accept a motion under rule 9.8.5A to extend the time limit by 10 minutes. Question is, then, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Can I ask if anyone is not agreed to shout loudly, please? The next question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division on amendment 33. This is a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 33 is, yes, 105, no to, and there were 13 abstentions. The amendment therefore is agreed to. I now call amendment 148, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 27. Alec Rowley, to move or not move. Thank you. That amendment has been moved. Question then is, that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 148 is, yes, 56, no, 65, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendments 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, all in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 34 to 39 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 34 to 39? There is an objection. Those amendments will be put individually. Question then is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 34 is, yes, 86, no, 34, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 38 is, yes, 65, no, 55, there were no abstentions. The amendment therefore is agreed to. The question now is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? No. No. We are not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 39 is, yes, 101, no, 19, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Can I just reiterate to the chamber that if anyone wishes to object, they must shout clearly no, because if neither myself nor the clerks here then we will move on and we will not return to that vote. Call amendment 40, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 27. And I remind members that if amendment 40 is agreed to, then I cannot call amendment 149, because there is a preemption. Minister, to move formally please. Moved. Thank you. Question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Pamelt is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 40 is, yes, 65, no, 56, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to, and that means that I now call amendment 150, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 27. And I ask Alec Rowley to move or not to move. To move, Presiding Officer. Okay. That amendment has been moved. Question then is, that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 150 is, yes, 55, no, 65, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to, and I call amendment 41, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 27. And I ask the minister to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question then is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 41 is, yes, 85, no, 36, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. That then brings us to group 2, European Charter of Local Self-Government. I call amendment 151, in the name of Tavish Scott, in a group on its own. And I ask Tavish Scott to move and speak to amendment 151. Please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. In a stimulating afternoon of voting, I thought we should debate Europe, so instead perhaps of the parts of Europe that other places have been debating, this is instead the European Charter of Local Self-Government. I was very encouraged by the minister's response to this matter, when it was raised at the earlier stages of this bill's proceedings. And indeed, he mentioned, I think, in the remarks at stage 2, that the EU Charter on Local Self-Governance in the bill may well, I think, be the appropriate focus for debate and amendment in this area. So here we have a chance to give effect to a very sensible ministerial observation. As the COSLA briefing to colleagues across Parliament says, the purpose of this is simply to ensure that government does recognise, in its duties and its responsibilities, the objectives of local government. There seem to me three strong points that local government is making to Parliament on this matter. The first is that the Charter was specifically drafted to protect communities and citizens from centralisation, which would reduce their rights to local self-government and active subsidiarity arrangements, forgive the European jargon. The second point that local government is making, which I think is worthy of consideration in this matter, is that it does place a duty on ministers of this government and indeed of every government to observe and promote the EU Charter while carrying out their functions. Not exactly a hardship, I would suggest, but nevertheless an important measure of government's intent towards and with local government. The third aspect of the COSLA, the local government observations, which I do suggest is worthy of some consideration by Parliament, is that, in noticing this is a pretty modest step, it does observe, COSLA does observe, that this would consolidate the right of local people to a greater influence in the way our communities manage their own affairs. Now that's very much in keeping and in the spirit of the minister's remarks this afternoon and certainly at stage to, during the committee amendments to this bill. The other aspect, which I think is worthy of consideration in considering this, is the money that underpins the effectiveness of local government. Now it's up to Parliament and up to local government how they give effect to this Parliament and this government's choices around, for example, the council tax freeze. But what is without doubt a fact is that by 2020 this Parliament will be spending £910 million a year on the council tax freeze and we will have spent £6.3 billion since that policy was introduced. Now if Parliament chooses to do that and supports that, that is so be it. But what at least we should have in this country is a debate about the alternatives to that and the alternatives that local government could give effect to, were they to have much more flexibility about how they resolved to spend their money and therefore to serve local people. Let me just finish with the observations of the consular spokesman in this area to the minister when he observed that it's important to— I'm afraid you really must hurry up. Do my best, Presiding Officer. Well otherwise I'm going to have to cut you off because I can't call anyone else in the group so please hurry. Well I'll just ask the Parliament to support it then. Thank you. I'm afraid I should have said that I'm extending this group under 9.8.4a to allow those with the right to speak to speak. I should have said that before I called Tavish Scott. I cannot call anyone else who wishes to speak and I now call the minister. Thank you. As a Government we do believe that the people who live and work in Scotland are best place to make decisions about our future. This is the essence of self-determination and accordingly we too are committed to subsidiarity and local decision making in public life. The Scottish Government works very much in partnership with local government and we share a vision of strengthening community planning, involvement and empowerment. Indeed the success of our joint working was highlighted by the Council of Europe last year. Our commitment to local autonomy, self-determination and governance is not only central to our proposals for this bill but it is also fundamental to our wider approach to public service reform and local government. The charter is a widely recognised articulation of the principles of local autonomy to which we are bound as an international treaty obligation by ratification in 1998 at the Council of Europe. Our actions are therefore already guided by the provisions of the European charter of local self-government. It commits us to applying basic rules guaranteeing the political, administrative and financial independence of local authorities. Crucially it provides that the principle of local self-government will be recognised in domestic legislation and where practicable in the constitution. The explanatory notes to the charter already recognise that states which do not have a written constitution like the UK will be unable to give that constitutional protection. This government believes in a written constitution and would wish to see local government covered by it. A mention only in legislation does not carry the same force or have the same effect and can be annulled by future Governments rather more easily. Legislation enacting the principles of the charter already exists. They are the local government acts setting out the powers and responsibilities of our councils which we believe are in accordance with all the provisions required in the charter. We have repeatedly asked local government partners that if they think that we are not in compliance with any of the parts of the charter to show us examples so that we can rectify the situation. Since the Concordat, the Scottish Government and local government have worked constructively in partnership across a whole range of issues. Of course there have been disagreements, there is a strength of any relationship is how you work through disagreements, but that collective decision making, that working together has been demonstrated through examples such as the large-scale reduction in budget ring fencing, the work that we are taking forward with the islands areas, ministerial working group, collaborative working with COSLA to strengthen community planning and of course this bill itself. I acknowledge the work of COSLA in bringing this issue to the fore. Indeed, I discussed it personally with Councillor McGregan earlier this week. While we may disagree on the specific amendment, we are united in recognising that local councils are an integral and essential element of the overall good governance in Scotland. We remain of the view that the only way to go beyond legislation would be to introduce a constitutional protection, and that would further safeguard the provisions of the charter. I would ask Mr Scott to withdraw his amendment. I appreciate that there is an awful lot of business to get through today, but my understanding is that there are only two or three areas of contention, and it would be unfortunate if Labour colleagues were not able to explain why we want to support the Liberals in this and disagree with the minister that this is not necessary. I wonder whether it is possible to have a think about the time that is available on those areas of contention so that Mr Scott gets a chance to fully develop his argument, others are able to express themselves and we are able to agree because there are huge areas of the bill where we do agree. Mr McIntosh, I take your point, and I think that it is regressible that we are so far behind at this stage. I think that that is a problem for the way the timings have been worked out and the time that has been allocated this afternoon. Unfortunately, my hands are tied because of the motion, but I can ask someone else to extend a motion now to move a motion now to extend by a further 10 minutes. At this stage, we have extended by a further 10 minutes. That may have to be revisited. The minister has moved and I now put the question to the chamber. Would you wish me to extend at this stage by a further 10 minutes? Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. Please, to wind up and indicate if… Sorry, no, I don't, Mr Scott. I'm very sorry. I now call Ken McIntosh for a brief speech. No pressure. Order, please, or we will need to extend for that immediately. You will be relieved to hear that it is a very, very brief contribution. It's simply that this charter guarantees the political, administrative and the financial independence of local authorities. It is in fact, I believe, the first European law that encapsulated in legislation the principle of subsidiarity. I would have thought, I would have hoped, in fact, that an administration, which occasionally is subject to criticism for its overcentralising tendencies, would have embraced this opportunity to prove otherwise. It's worth noting that not just Corsola, but every single local administration across England, Northern Ireland and Wales called before the general election for any future administration in this country to embrace and put this charter into any constitutional settlement. I'm slightly disappointed by the Government's point of view, and we'd like to commend Tavish Scott for bringing forward this motion. Thank you, Mr McIntosh. I also now call Claire Adamson briefly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that Tavish Scott and Ken McIntosh have brought to light the importance of this charter and a timely reminder of how important European membership is to Scotland in our future. The Council of European Charter and Local Government was signed by the UK Government in 1997, formally binding the UK and successive Governments and their devolved assemblies and devolved administrations to respect the terms that implement its requirements. However, some of the requirements are specific to a written constitution. However, the charter in itself makes explanatory notes, recognises the UK's constitutional arrangements and suggests that no legislation is needed. The article provides that the principle of local self-government should be enshrined in litter law, but goes on to say that it was also recognised that countries not having a written constitution but a constitution to be found in various documents and sources might encounter specific difficulties or even be unable to make that commitment. I do not think that the way in which Scottish law stands would give any of the protections that is expected of the people who are moving the amendment. On that basis, it should be rejected as we already have protection in Scottish law. I now call Tavish Scott to wind up and indicate if he wishes to press or withdraw. I am very grateful particularly to Ken McIntosh for this opportunity to say very briefly, thank you Presiding Officer, for allowing a slight further debate on this matter. I take the Minister's points about the constitutional aspects of this. There's a perfectly fair argument about that, but the point about this is that for many of us suspect including him privately and certainly for local government, then this is a step forward and we should take this opportunity in Parliament and in law to take it because it strengthens the very arguments that he was making. I can't take his arguments on centralisation too seriously. They've replaced ring fencing after all with a straight jacket of the council tax freeze, whether you think that's a good, bad or a different thing, as local government sees it as it is a straight jacket on what they can do and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. I'm very grateful to the Minister for mentioning the concordat. We haven't heard that for about four years. It used to be mentioned every week at First Minister's questions, but no longer, so it's not just historic now, it's just a point of history. Mr Scott has little time to make his point, we must hear him. I'll be very grateful, very grateful, for impressing that amendment. Thank you, and that means that the question is, amendment 151 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not. This will be a one-minute division, please vote now. Result of the vote in amendment number 151 is yes, 52, no, 68. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. That now brings us to group 3, community planning, locality plans, et cetera, and I call amendment 1. In the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment grouped with amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. I ask the Minister to move amendment 1 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you. During stage 2 consideration of provisions on community planning, the local government and regeneration committee and I discussed duties that should be imposed on community planning partnerships, CPPs, to undertake locality planning. That is, working with communities to prepare, publish and deliver on plans aimed at improving outcomes for local communities at a smaller level than the whole CPP area. Although I could not agree to the specific amendments that Alec Rowley lodged at that time, I undertook to work with Labour members of the committee to introduce community planning at a more neighbourhood level, and I have appreciated the constructive involvement and discussion that I have had with Labour members since. Amendment 1 requires CPPs to include a description of the needs and circumstances of persons in the CPP area within their local outcomes improvement plan. Amendments 2 and 3 are minor amendments in consequence of amendments 4 to 7, which introduce locality planning and locality plan improvement reports. Amendment 4 imposes duties on each CPP to identify the geographic localities that make up their area and then to identify those ones where persons experience significantly poorer outcomes than are experienced by persons residing in other localities in that area or experienced generally by persons residing in Scotland. Amendment 5 imposes duties on each CPP to prepare and then publish a locality plan for each locality as identified as experiencing those significantly poorer outcomes referred to in amendment 4. To further encourage locality planning, the amendment makes clear that CPPs may also prepare and publish locality plans for other areas. I would encourage all to consider doing that. Amendment 6 imposes a duty on each CPP to keep under review the question of whether it is making progress in improving the achievement of each local outcome referred to in the locality plan. CPPs must also review the locality plan and revise it. Amendment 7 imposes a duty on each CPP to prepare and publish a locality plan progress report for each locality plan published by it for each reporting year. Provisions contained in amendments 5, 6 and 7 for locality plans broadly echo the corresponding duties on CPPs around their local outcomes improvement plan in sections 5, 6 and 7 of the bill. It is part of our wider programme of community empowerment, and that basis is, hopefully, to be supported. Amendment 8 adds a definition, lastly, of locality to the interpretation section for part 2 in consequence of amendment 4. I would hope that those amendments, which began from the Opposition, have been taken on by the Government, would command wide support around the chamber. I move amendment 1. I have four members wishing to speak. If they all take a minute, I should be able to fit everyone in. Ken Macintosh, to be followed by Cameron Buchanan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do not wish to add anything to the substantive arguments that the minister makes. Simply, in the interests of transparency, there were a number of outstanding issues left hanging from stage 2, and I just acknowledged the fact that the minister did engage in consultation with members from Labour benches, Alec Rowley, Miss Eltham, Kara Hilton and others. I want to thank him for those efforts and offer our support for amendment 8. I just want to say that we are quite in agreement with amendments 1, 2 and 3, but it is amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 that raise concerns, not because of their practical content, but because of the principle that they threaten. A bill about empowering communities should do just that. Communities should be able to set their own priorities and aims for improvement, including where they occur. It therefore follows that a community planning partnership, if it is to be empowered, should not be told which studies to do and areas to focus on. They should be able to decide that for themselves. The point is not that improving outcomes for disadvantaged communities is the wrong aim, but rather that communities should be left to set their own priorities and be free to use their resources as they see fit. Many thanks. Kevin Stewart, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the constructive discussions that have taken place to get us to those amendments. I think that Cameron Buchanan has got on the wrong end of the stick entirely. What those amendments will do is ensure that communities at a very low level, at a neighbourhood level, at a very local level, will have a say instead of being dictated to completely and utterly by a community planning partnership, which many folk will feel as being distant. In terms of empowering people, I urge Cameron Buchanan to rethink what he has just said and to back those amendments, which will do much in empowering communities, particularly those that are disadvantaged. I welcome those amendments. It is very good that the top-down process of community planning is going to become far more localised because of that. I think that credit goes to the minister, but also to Alex Rowley, who pushed those issues very strongly in committee. I suppose that I have only got one question to the minister, because we have had a detailed process around the integration of health and social care, whereby there have to be locality plans. Many people are asking what is the relationship between the locality plans of the integration authorities and those locality plans. If he could share any light on that, that would be helpful. Thank you. I said four members, but John Wilson has also made a request. John Wilson, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to seek clarification from the minister in relation to amendment 5, after section 7, locality plan subsection 4, it refers to, in preparing a locality plan, a community planning partnership, must consult A, such community bodies as it considers appropriate. Can you seek clarification from the minister whether or not there will be expected in community planning partnerships to extend that consultation as widely as possible and not to exclude groups? I am very happy to address all the concerns and answer the specific questions. On John Wilson's last point, it is very clear that CPPs have a lot of duties that are coming in as a result of the bill to foster participation, in particular from underrepresented socioeconomic groups, and that that would come under the ambit of locality planning as well. I disagree with Cameron Buchanan's take on it. I think that there may simply be a misunderstanding or a difference of interpretations. Community planning partnerships are very valuable organisations because they bring not just the council around the table but all of the public and the third and private sector partners too for an area, but they do so at the level of a local authority area. To try to replicate that, to try to have some of that work happening at a more local level is an aim that I would hope to share. Those amendments are set up to give flexibility over how the area gets divided up. The initial proposal was community council units, but those amendments are very flexible in that regard to allow the CPP to take an approach based on whatever sensible division of the local authority area it thinks is worthwhile. That is a point where interaction with health and social care localities may well prove to be a sensible approach for some. Others might not choose to align. That is down to local decision making, but it is important that all CPPs recognise, as part of the thrust that we have in the bill, of targeting areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, that locality plans at a minimum need to be delivered for those areas that are suffering particular disadvantage, either relative to the rest of that local authority area or Scotland, and that some work is undertaken in those areas to recognise their particular problems at neighbourhood level. There is nothing to stop a CPP undertaking locality plans for the entirety of its area, but those areas have to be targeted. The question then is that, amendment 1, we agree to, are we all agreed? Could I just ask the Parliament if we are not agreed, if we are agreed, don't say yes, if we are not agreed, shout no? I'm going to ask that question again because I thought I heard a no and I want to be clear. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I now call amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, all in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 2 to 8 on block, please. I now ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 2 to 8. Does any member object? Members do object, in which case I will put the question on each amendment individually. So the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. Question is that amendment 3 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Question is that amendment 4 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. This is the first division of the group, it will be a one minute division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 4 is yes, 104, no 14, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. The question now is that amendment 5 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not, there will be a division, this will be a 32nd division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 5 is yes, 103, no 16, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The question then is that amendment 6 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed, there will be a 32nd division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 6 is yes, 104, no 11, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. Question then is that amendment number 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division, 32nd division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 7 is yes, 103, no 15, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. The question now is that amendment number 8 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a 32nd division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 8 is yes, 104, no 15, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. That then brings us to group 4, types of group entitled to make participation requests. I call amendment 9 in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, group with amendments 10 and 11, and I ask the minister to move amendment 9 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you. Those amendments respond to another commitment that I made at stage 2. The Local Government and Regeneration Committee had expressed concern about the need for a group to have a written constitution before being able to make a participation request. While I did not agree with the amendments that were put forward at stage 2, which would have allowed individuals to make such requests, I recognise the need to allow for groups that are less formally organised to nonetheless come together and contribute their ideas for improving their communities. Those could be groups that are so informal as to not wish to codify or groups in the earliest stages of establishment who nonetheless already have ideas to offer. Section 14 of the bill sets out the criteria that are required for a group to be a community-controlled body. That includes requirements for the group to define the community that it represents, to be open to all members of that community and controlled by members of that community. Each of those is important. It is not about others telling the community what is good for them. Although partnerships may be welcome organisations such as Citizens Advice bureaus and others may be consulted to provide support to participation requests, but that is about community empowerment. We need to retain those key features of a community body even if they are not set out in a formal constitution. Amendments 9 and 10 therefore provide for another type of community participation body, set out in section 15, which does not have a written constitution but has all the same features of having a community basis being open to and representative of that community and being not for profit. In the absence of a constitution establishing and codifying that, there must be a test of whether a group meets those criteria. Amendment 11 provides that that will be for the public service authority to determine. The group must also provide such information as the authority needs to be satisfied of that. That information need not be produced in formal documents. It might come from leaflets or newsletters or just conversations with the group about who they are and how they decide what the group should do. Those amendments will open up participation requests to less formal groups, which nonetheless have something to offer their community while ensuring that they are still being used only by groups that are open, non-profit and representative. I move amendment 9. Many thanks minister. Do you feel the need to wind up? No other member wishes to speak. Thank you, in which case the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Now call amendment 10, in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 9. powers the minister to move formally please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 11. In the name of the minister already debated with amendment 9 and ask the minister to move formally. Moved. Diolch i gaelatofydd. Ac mae'n gweithio? Aeth yn gweithio? Y Peth ydyn nhw. A gweithio yn gweithio'r diweddau, ac mae'n gweithio'r adnod i hefyd. A fydd eich gwrs o'r gwybll fel y dyma'r gweithredu. Oedden nhw i'n enthysgwm, ddych chi'n edrych yn cael fan wrthu meddwl, ar gyfer rhywbeth nôr 9.8.48 a fydd eich cynhyrchu yn haith gwybll y dyma'r gweithredu. Coler hyn maen nhw iheithio hyn. 42, yn y name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, which is grouped with the member 43, and I ask the minister to move amendment 42 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Everything in this bill is about empowering communities. It does so by conferring new rights and by signalling that the approach across the public sector has to be one of welcoming and facilitating communities in decision making. Participation requests are a way of generating that partnership. They are the embodiment of the new culture that we want to see in the public sector in which community participation in decision making is the norm, where we create positive relationships and make the most of all the knowledge and ideas that communities have to offer. That depends on mutual respect. A minister can make provision for many things, but we cannot by legislation, order or instruction create that respect. Although we could force people to come to any table, in my view, it is unlikely that anything positive would come out of dialogue held in such adversarial circumstances. We believe that community bodies have the right to participate. Through participation requests, this legislation sets out a process to allow them to do so, and helpful stage 2 amendments, meaning that the bill already now ensures that public authorities must be transparent about how they are dealing with requests with clear, regular reporting. Ministers will take note of the performance of bodies reporting to us, and I expect that councillors will do so, too, in their own local authorities. However, we need to be clear that, being able to appeal potentially any participation request, as the bill currently allows, I expect to see a sweeping range of requests coming to ministers centrally for their decision making. Participation requests can range from an informal group with some suggestions to make as a very junior partner in a community action plan, to a community organisation seeking to take over delivery of a service. In the latter case, on consideration, there may be a stronger case for appeals to ministers. That is an important distinction, although one that could also have significant interaction with other important areas of law and would therefore be vital, absolutely vital, to get right in its detail. We are therefore proposing to make provision for appeals to be introduced on participation requests if experience shows that they are needed. Amendment 42 provides a power for ministers to make regulations about appeals or reviews of decisions relating to participation requests. That also allows for appeals or reviews to be carried out by persons other than Scottish ministers. I am sure that appeals or reviews would only be needed in exceptional cases, and we need to make sure that the system is proportionate. I have also lodged an amendment, which we will come to in the next group, to require ministers to prepare a report on the operation of participation requests across the country. That will ensure that the system is reviewed within three years of coming into effect, though the regulation making power is independent of that timescale. I hope that members will agree that making provision for appeals in this way is a more appropriate method of dealing with participation requests and ensuring that, if appeals are found to be needed, a system can be set up that is tailored to the situation that can be updated as needed and where used makes things better rather than worse. I move amendment 42. Once again, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept emotion without notice to propose the time limit to be extended by 10 minutes if the Minister for Parliament might move such a motion. Is that agreed? I presume that the silence means that we are agreed. That then allows me to call two members who wish to contribute to this group, but the contributions should be brief. I fully agree with the minister that the bill is all about improving the involvement and participation of communities. As part of that, the minister seems to suggest that where communities participate and that participation request is turned down by a public body, that is likely to be on a rare occasion, and that is true. However, it is very important that the right to appeal that decision is enshrined in our legislation and, in supporting that argument, I would like to quote no less an authority than Mike Russell, MSP, who argued at stage 2. Mr Russell said at stage 2 that this is about appeals in relation to asset transfers, a different part of the bill. He said that there is no doubt that, in a very few exceptional cases, giving community bodies a route of appeal to Scottish ministers could be beneficial because it would strengthen part of the bill's focus on openness, transparency and consistency. It may well be a proportionate measure. I could not have put it better myself, and that is why the committee agreed that amendment at stage 2. Rather than taking the amendment out and replacing it with the Government-powered regulation, I would ask the minister to rethink his approach here. It is about shifting the balance of power so that public bodies know that any decisions that they take may be challenged and that there is an appeal mechanism. It is important that we give the communities the power, not the public body. I urge the minister not to move his amendment. I have listened to what Kevin Macintosh said, and I also read the official report from stage 2. I genuinely appreciate what Alex Rowley was trying to do at stage 2 and what we have in the bill at the moment. I am sure that Alex Rowley will agree that he will have a good understanding of my position on community empowerment as a former committee member, but I think that what the bill says is that the moment will prove to be unworkable in many circumstances. I fear that the bill, as it stands, could allow a confrontational approach to transpire, and I know that that is not what the section intends to do, but I fear that that would happen. If an individual gets to a point of an appeal on an issue clearly and understandably their feelings will be running high, I also believe that amendment 42 that we are discussing now will assist with this type of situation by providing the regulations and appeals and reviews as compared to what is currently in the bill. Amendment 42 does not preclude an appeal on a review system from happening if it is found that it is required, which the minister touched upon in his comments, with amendment 44 to be discussed shortly and calling on ministers to review the operation of participation requests within three years of them coming into operation. I therefore support the amendments 42 and 43 in the minister's name. I will be brief. As I have said, we have taken on board the case being made. There is provision in here. The contrast between what Mike Russell said in this section is that, with asset transfers, there is a tangible physical asset. The difference between that and a constructive relationship in dialogue could not be bigger. That is why, perhaps, services, takeover of services might be a valid distinction there to make. Let me give just one example. If a council tenants association wants to discuss how a concierge area should be decorated and makes a participation request to the council on that and gets knocked back under the provision right now without those amendments, that is appealable straight to ministers. If people believe that that is the right way for things to be decided, they are welcome to vote the way they want. However, please let them never come to this chamber and accuse this Government of centralisation again if they do so. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. This is the first amendment in the group. It will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 42 is, yes, 81. No 35. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Amendment 43, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 42. I ask the minister to move formally, please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. This will be a 30-second division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 43 is, yes, 86. No 29. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Before I call group 6, my colleague John Scott will be taking over the chair. I just say to the chamber that the anticipated timings for this stage 3 are very far from the reality, so I will now go and look carefully at the timings for the rest of this afternoon and this evening. I call group 6, participation requests and asset transfer request reports, and I call amendment 12, in the name of the minister for local government community empowerment, group with amendments 44 and 19, and I ask the minister to move amendment 12 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please, minister. Thank you. At stage 2, following the committee's recommendation, I brought forward provisions to require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on asset transfer requests and participation requests. Those reports will set out the number of requests received in their results, as well as how the authority is promoting and supporting the use of those requests. John Wilson proposed that a deadline should be set for those reports to be produced. We've sought the views of some of our key stakeholders in the public sector and the third sector, including DTAS, SCDC, SCVO, Barnardo's Oxfam poverty alliance, and the majority view is that 30 June would be an appropriate date for the annual reports to be published. That is what amendments 12 and 19 put in place. Amendment 44 is the amendment that I spoke about just now in relation to appeals. It requires ministers to prepare a report on the operation of participation requests within three years of them coming into force and lay it before Parliament. I move amendment 12. Before I call all our speakers, I just want to let Parliament know that, as we have passed the agreed time limit under rule 9.8.4e brackets E, I consider it necessary to allow the debate on group 6 to continue beyond the limit in order to allow those with the right to speak in amendments in the group to do so. I now call amendment 12 to be agreed to. I now call group 7 and amendment 45, in the name of the minister for the environment, climate change and land reform group, with the other amendments shown in the grouping. Minister, to move amendment 45 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. The purpose of amendment 45 is to extend the ability for a community body to define its community by reference to postcode units or postcode units to both Scottish charitable and corporate organisations, skills and community benefit societies, Bencoms. Amendments 48, 49, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 87. The purpose of these amendments is to update the provisions in part 2 and the new part 3A of the 2003 act, which set out what type of connection a community is required to have with the land, which is the subject of an application under part 2 to register an interest in land or part 3A to apply to exercise the right to buy. Amendment 48 ensures that the acquisition of the land for the community body has to be compatible with furthering the achievement of sustainable development of the land and is applicable to all sub-paragraphs of section 38.1b of the 2003 land reform act. It also makes some technical changes to the definition of a community to align with the extension in the types of community bodies that can make an application to include Bencoms, skills and other types of bodies as prescribed in regulations by ministers. Amendment 48 repeals the reference to the definition of community within section 38.1b, because it is already being set out in section 38.3. Amendment 48 also amends section 38.1b by inserting the following two additional options for fulfilling the requirement for demonstrating the connection with the land. That is where the community body is accompanied limited by guarantee, a Bencom or skill, the land is in or sufficiently near to the area of the community, as set out in their articles of association, constitution or registered rules, or where the community body is a body as prescribed by ministers, the land is in or sufficiently near to the area of the community to which that body relates. Amendment 49 makes technical changes to section 38.3b of part 2 of the 2003 act to take account of the fact that community bodies can now take the form of skills, Bencoms and other forms of body as prescribed in regulations by ministers. Amendment 70 and 72 move the definition of a company limited by guarantee so that this definition is grouped within the subsection which defines other types of body that can constitute a community body. Amendment 82 repeals the reference to the definition of community in the new subsection 97hh because it is superseded by the new provisions inserted by amendment 87. Amendment 83 is a minor wording change in section 97hh2 and this amendment is consequential to amendment 87. Amendment 84 amends the new section 97hh and the connection between the community and the land in the same way that amendment 48 does. Amendment 85 repeals the words so defined in section 97h1 and this amendment is consequential to the change, the definition of community, as introduced by amendment 87. Amendment 87 provides it for the purposes of section 97h of part 3a of the 2003 act. References to a community are references to the community as defined in the community bodies application. Amendments 47, 62, 74, 75, 76 and 78 all relate to the details of community bodies, crofting community bodies and part 3a community bodies that have to be included on the various registers that relate to the rights to buy in parts 2, part 3 and the new part 3a of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. Nair imposes the same requirement to include the names and address of the scales and the bencoms in the relevant register. They also require a community body that has registered the interest in land to notify the keeper of a change the community body's name or registered or principal office as soon as is reasonably practical after the change has been made. Amendment 62 also enables information or documentation to be withheld from public inspection when it relates to arrangements for the raising or expenditure of money that would be used for a particular purpose in connection with the land that is a subject of the application and that ensures that sensitive financial data is appropriately safeguarded and not made publicly available. I would simply like to welcome the addition of scales and bencoms to the available community bodies which can now apply to this part of the bill and I would like to welcome that very much. Many thanks Minister to wind up please. So the question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And so we now move to the next group, group 8 and I call amendment 46 in the name of the minister Minister to move amendment 46 and speak to all amendments in the group please. With amendment 46, Presiding Officer, section 353 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 allows ministers to compulsory acquire land bought by a community body under part 2 of the 2003 act. If ministers are satisfied that had it not bought that land then it would no longer be entitled to do so. So amendment 46, if agreed, will give ministers where they exercise their power of compulsory acquisition under section 353 of the 2003 act, the power to make an order modifying any enactment relating to or in connection with the acquisition of the land and it will bring the relevant sections of parts 2, 3 and the new part 3a of the 2003 act into alignment. Amendment 136 is consequential to amendment 46 and provides that the new power for ministers to make such an order is subject to the affirmative procedure. With amendments 54 and 55, their purpose is purely to ensure consistency in the wording of section 39a of the 2003 act. Amendments 63 and 64 were the purpose of those that has insert the new section to be inserted by section 47k of the bill after section 97 rather than 97a of the 2003 act, as there is another section 97b of the 2003 act to be inserted by section 48 of the bill. And amendment 64 just renumbers this section as section 97za of the 2003 act. Amendment 71 adjusts a cross-reference in section 97d7 of the 2003 act, which relates to part 3a community bodies. Amendment 77 provides that the person who provides a document or other information or makes a decision, a copy of which is to be registered in the part 3a register, but they must give a copy of those to the keeper as soon as reasonably practical. Amendment 88 alters the paragraph of section 97g3 to clarify the regulations made by ministers about how the ballot is to be conducted, make provision for the ascertainment and publication of the number of persons eligible to vote in the ballot, the number who did vote and the number of valid votes respectively cast for and against, and the regulations must also make provision for the form and manner in which the result of the ballot is to be published. Amendment 89 leaves out the unnecessary words of the registers of Scotland because a definition of the keeper of the registers of Scotland as the keeper is provided in section 97f9 of the 2003 act. With amendment 137, its purpose is that the power inserted by section 97d1b into the 2003 act are subject to the affirmative procedure, and that power allows ministers to make regulations setting out an additional description of body in addition to a body falling within subsection 1a, 1b or 1c of section 97d of the 2003 act that may be part 3a community bodies and to set out any requirements that those bodies must comply with. With amendments 139, 140, 141 and 142, those relate to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. The amended provisions that were inserted by stage 2 amendment that were brought forward by Michael Russell. The effect of those sets of amendments is that ministers, when making certain decisions on a right to buy application, made under parts 2, 3 or 3a, the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, must have regard to that international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Amendments 140 and 141 are minor drafting amendments. Amendment 142 adds two qualifications of the reference to the covenant, and the references to the covenant are qualified by any amendments in force in relation to the United Kingdom for the time being, any reservations, objections or interpretive declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force. I would simply like to welcome Mike Russell's stage 2 amendment on HR issues and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and recognise the minister's amendments from 139 in the tidying process in those. Thank you. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We now move to amendment 47 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 45. So the question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you. Call of amendment 48 in the name of the minister to move. So the question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much. We now move to group 9 in the call of amendment 154 in the name of Claudia Beamish, grouped with amendment 155. I call Claudia Beamish to move amendment 154 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A version of my amendments 154 and 155 were lodged previously at stage 2 by my colleague on rural affairs committee, Dave Thompson, based on discussions with Community Land Scotland. Section 30 of the bill amends section 38 of the 2003 act, which sets out the criteria for registration of community interests. The bill inserts new provision precluding ministers from considering any community support that is dated earlier than six months before the date of application for registering a community interest in land is received by ministers. The amendment seeks to increase this to 12 months. At stage 2, the minister stated that it was important that the approval of the members of the community was current, which I acknowledge, and that a 12-month timeframe could see plans or the community itself changed. Her alternative amendment gives ministers the power to alter the timeframe by regulation if it is proved that the six-month timeframe posed a barrier to communities exercising their right to buy. Assurances were given at stage 2 that the regulations would only be used to increase not to decrease the timescale. My amendment 155 would give the statutory footing to ensure that any amendment to the timeframe could not reduce it to less than six months. I have no doubt that Claudia Beamish's amendments are well intentioned, but I find them pretty unnecessary, given the ability that is already given to ministers in the bill to substitute a different period of time if they see a need to do so. I personally think that six months is an appropriate period of time, given the ability of ministers to alter it in this instance in particular, because I think that shorter periods of time keep minds focused and probably keep momentum moving forward, both of which abilities I think would be diminished by extending the period for approval to 12 months. For those reasons, we will not be supporting these amendments. The bill is introduced in a new section 32A into the 2003 act, which states that, in considering an application for registration of an interest in land, ministers must not take into account the approval of a member of the community if it was indicated earlier than six months before the date on which the part 2 application was made. Amendment 154 has increased this period of time for approval for six to eight 12 months to give more flexibility to ministers to consider community support. I believe, however, that it is important for such approval to be current if the approval was given 12 months prior to the date of application, the community's plans or the community itself may have changed. The bill also inserts section 38A into the 2003 act, which gives ministers power to amend the time limit if they consider it desirable. I hope that that would give some reassurance to Claudia Beamish, and I urge her to withdraw amendment 154. Amendment 155 means that ministers, when using the new power in section 38A to be in the 2003 act to amend the six-fund time limit, could not change to a period of less than six months, and I support amendment 155. Amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote in amendment 154 is yes, 39, no, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Amendment 155, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is already debated with amendment 154. Claudia Beamish, do you move or not move? To move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Was that a yes or a no? It was a no, right? Thank you. There will be a division, a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 155 is yes, 103, no, 14. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 49, in the name of the minister, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Now move to group 10. Amendment 50, in the name of the minister, minister. To move amendment 50 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Amendment 44, lodged in response to Claudia Beamish's stage 2 amendment 57, which sought to provide flexibility in the timescales for providing information in connection with an application made under part 2 or 3A of the 2003 act. I committed during stage 2 to bring forward amendments, and I believe that the best approach is to increase the period at key points in the process. I have identified four areas in which I believe that an extension from 7 to 14 days in which to provide information would be beneficial to the party concerned. Amendment 50 changes from 7 to 14 days, the time within which the relevant party must provide to ministers additional information in connection with a late application. Amendment 52 changes from 7 to 14 days, the time within which persons must provide ministers with further information in connection with an application. Amendment 57 changes from 7 days to 14 days, the time within which the community body must provide to ministers additional information in connection with an application. Amendment 58 changes from 7 days to 14 days, the time within which the community body may provide additional information in connection with circumstances that affected the ballot. Amendment 144 removes paragraph 2.6 from schedule 4 of the bill, which is the current provision for extending 7-day time limits. I would just like to support the minister's amendments, which rationalise my stage 2 amendment to extend waiting time periods in late applications. I would like to thank Claudia Beamish for her contribution to his amendments at stage 2. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We now move to group 11. I call amendment 51. In the name of the minister, minister to move amendment 51 and speak to both amendments in the group. Amendments 51 and 53 have been brought as a result of withdrawn stage 2 amendment 49 that was lodged by Alex Ferguson. At stage 2 I committed to bringing forward a stage 3 amendment as amendment 49 did not take account of factors such as the terms on which the land was offered to the community body and the reasons why the community body rejected or did not complete the purchase. Amendment 51 relates to the late application process in part 2 of the 2003 act. It inserts new criteria about which ministers must be satisfied before consenting to a late application. That is to prevent a late application from being accepted if the land was offered to the same or a similar community body within the last 12 months unless, in the opinion of ministers, there are good reasons why the body did not purchase the land. Examples of things that might be considered good reasons include the fact that conditions were attached to the sale of the land or the area of land offered did not meet the community's needs at the time. Amendment 53 inserts provision that it is a decision for ministers whether a community body is a similar community body for the purposes of those provisions. When considering whether a community body is the term similar, ministers will have regard to matters that will be set out in regulations such as how many of the named directors or other officers or named members of the two community bodies are the same. I am grateful to the minister for bringing forward those two amendments. As she acknowledged, they stem from one that I tabled at stage 2 and drew, given the Government's undertaking, to look at the issue that I raised and then bring forward its own amendment. That issue was simply to provide a bit of protection in the circumstances that the minister has described. Amendment 51 provides a better balance to the process, and amendment 53 very sensibly allows a bit of flexibility in the definitions of any offer made, the land in question and indeed the make-up of the community body. I am very happy to support those amendments. Right, so the question is amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 52, 53, 54 and 55, all in the name of the minister for the environment, climate change and land reform. I invite the minister to move amendments 52 to 55 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 52 to 55? As no member objects, the question is that amendments 52 to 55 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much. So we now move to group 12 and I call amendment 56 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move amendment 56 and speak to both amendments in the group. Amendment 56 relates to part 2 of the 2003 act. This amendment has been launched as a result of withdrawing stage 2 amendment 52 that was lodged by Dave Thompson, which required the keeper to notify the community body of the expiry of their registered interest. I believe that it is more appropriate for ministers to notify the community body of the expiry. Amendment 56 requires ministers to notify a community body that its registered interest in land is due to expire not earlier than 12 months before the registered interest is due to expire. Ministers will have a period of 28 days from that date in which to send the notification to the community body in order to give the community body sufficient time to prepare its re-registration. Amendment 56, under the existing provisions of part 2 of the 2003 act, a community is required to re-register their interest every five years. This re-registration period is designed to ensure that the community's support for the acquisition remains current and that other vital aspects have not changed. This amendment seeks to extend the time period for which a registration of interest lasts from five to seven years. However, that would no longer provide an indication of the community's current support for the acquisition or identify other important changes to the circumstances that justify the original registration of interest. I intend to introduce, under sections 37.1 and 98.3 of the 2003 act, a more streamlined form to be used by community bodies for re-registration, which will make the five-year re-registration process less onerous while ensuring that community support for the acquisition remains current. We therefore propose to retain the current five-year period, and I ask that Claudia Beamish should not move amendment 156. Many thanks. I invite Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 156 and other amendments in the group, please. I thank the minister and have listened carefully to what he has said. However, I would just like to reiterate some points, some for consideration of the chamber in relation to this amendment. A version of 156 was initially submitted at stage 2, again by Dave Thompson following discussion with Community Land Scotland, and we were in support of that amendment at that time. It did seek to extend the time period for which a registration of interest lasts from the current five years under section 44 of the 2003 act to 10 years, a recommendation that came from the Land Reform Review Group. The minister at that time argued that this would no longer provide an indication of community support for the acquisition, as the minister has highlighted again today, and would risk ministers being unaware of important changes in circumstances. The amendment was withdrawn by Mike Russell, who spoke to that amendment in Dave Thompson's absence and spoke at committee. Are some ministers to consider whether that advice from the Land Reform Review Group requires further thought? The minister indicated that she would happily look again at the amendment but decided against pursuing the issue as a Government amendment, as I understand it. As a compromise based on the minister's comments, my amendment 156 seeks to increase the duration of the registration to seven years to simplify issues again for community groups. This will be a step in the direction of the Land Reform Review Group's recommendation and would reduce the burden faced by community bodies on re-registration in my view. Even though the minister has highlighted today the streamlining of the re-registration. I am afraid that we cannot agree with Claudia Beamish's amendment 156. Five-year intervals are generally accepted as a standard period of time, for instance, through the planning process. It seems to me that five years is the right period of time before re-registration is required, especially as the process of re-registration is to be considerably simplified as a result of the bill and the further regulations that are to come. I still consider that five years is a decent period of time to demonstrate community support. That amendment 156 ensures that community bodies have adequate time to ensure that the re-registration is carried out as smoothly as possible. On that basis, I urge members to support amendment 156. Is amendment 156 agreed to, or are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 156, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is to move or not move? The question is that amendment 156 is agreed to, or are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division, and this will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote in amendment 156 is, yes, 39, no, 78. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 57, in the name of the minister, minister to move. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to, or are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 58, in the name of the minister, minister to move. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to, or are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much. Now move to group 13. Call of amendment 59, in the name of the minister. Groups of amendments 60, 61, 91, 93 and 94. Minister to move amendment 59 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Amendments 59, 60, 61, 91, 93 and 94 require the party who is lodging an appeal, referring a question or making an application to the land's tribunal for Scotland. All the Scottish Land Court to notify the Scottish ministers within seven days of the appeal being lodged, a question being referred or application being made. The amendments will also require where this is not already the case for the land's tribunal or land court to send a copy of its written decision to ministers to ensure that ministers are kept up to date with progress on an application and that any errors in processing an application are avoided. Amendment 59 relates to an application to land's tribunal in connection with the unreasonable failure or delay to transfer title to the community body following agreement to purchase the land under part 2. Amendment 60 relates to appeals to land's tribunal in connection with evaluation of the land on a part 2 application. Amendment 61 refers to appeals to land court in connection with evaluation of the land on a part 3 application. Amendment 91 relates to questions to land's tribunal in connection with a claim for compensation on a part 3a application. Amendment 93 relates to appeals to land's tribunal in connection with evaluation of the land for a part 3a application. Amendment 94 relates to questions to the land's tribunal in connection with a part 3a application. Thank you. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. Amendment 60, in the name of the minister, minister to move. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Mae hyn yn ymwneud ym Mhwyshawd. Mae Ym Mhwyshawd i ni ddim yn 157 iawn yn gwneud Gwil Seraibwyaidd yn gwybod, felly mae gennym iawn i Gwil Seraibwyaidd oedd yn iawn i'r amendment 157. Mae Ym Mhwyshawd ein 157 oedd efallai allan yr amendment 157 i wych o'r gwybod Cymru Lland Scotland a'r concerns 73 yma dda i Gwil Seraibwyaidd ym Ym Mhwyshawd. Efallai y cwmp ydyn nhw rydyn nhw'n'n cymunith i esgawdd right to buy. Subsection 5 of that section specifies certain information that should be included in the application with reference where appropriate to maps. Community Land Scotland has highlighted that the requirement to remain potentially onerous for a crofting community body. Amendment 157 would insert a new subsection giving ministers the option to modify the specific paragraphs in subsection 5 to address such concerns should the need arise via regulations. Those regulations could also provide for specific paragraphs in subsection 5 not to apply in such circumstances, as ministers may specify. It gives ministers flexibility to act where it's appropriate, and I hope that colleagues will support this amendment, because I believe that it's a good and proportionate addition to this bill. Section 735 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 requires a crofting community body as part of their crofting community right to buy application to provide certain information about the land, which is a subject of their application, and those requirements were amended at stage 2 of the bill to make them less onerous. Ministers currently have a power to set out in regulations the kind of information that must be included in or accompany an application, but that power is subject to the minimum requirements set out in section 735. If agreed, amendment 157 will add a provision that will give ministers a regulation-making power allowing them to amend or repeal the minimum requirements for information that must be included in or accompany the application. That would allow ministers to change or remove the requirements in section 735, should it be identified in the future, that those requirements are still considered to be too onerous for a crofting community body to comply with, and I support amendment 157. I thank and break it with convention, and I allow Mike Russell to speak. Not everybody will be grateful for that. Can I make two points that I think this amendment draws attention to? The first one is the need for flexibility in all arrangements to do with community purchase, to take down barriers to community purchase that exists in this amendment. I commend the minister for that very practical approach throughout this bill. It removes barriers that would otherwise deter some communities. The second one is the important role that Community Land Scotland and other organisations have played in helping the committee that looked at this part of the bill and helping the Government to understand, because they have worked closely with the Government, the Government to understand how it is important that community purchase is encouraged and enabled, and that any difficulties that do exist in legislation are minimised to the maximum degree. I am grateful to the minister and to Sarah Boyack for their participation in this, but particularly to Community Land Scotland. Thank you. Minister, do you have anything further to add, or I move to Sarah Boyack? Many thanks. I will now call on Sarah Boyack to wind up and press it with draw your amendment, please. I would like to press my amendment, and I want to thank the minister for her helpful approach in this matter and for the support of Mike Russell. I hope that all colleagues will be able to support this useful, if minor, amendment. Thank you. We shall see. The question is that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendments 61, 62, 63 and 64, all in the name of the minister, and I invite the minister to move amendment 61 to 64 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendment 61 to 64? There is no member does. The question is that amendment 61 to 64 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now move to group 15. Call of amendments 65 in the name of the minister. Group to the amendments 158, 159, 169, 161, 164 and 135. I would draw a member's attention to the fact that if amendment 160 in group 17 is agreed to, we cannot call amendment 161 in this group because of preemption. Minister, to move amendment 65 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please. Amendment 65 provides a definition of inland waters for the purposes of part 3A of the 2003 act. Amendment 158 provides that a draft statutory instrument containing regulations which set out what land will be treated as eligible land for the purposes of part 3A of the 2003 act must be laid before the Scottish Parliament within 18 months of the bill receiving royal assent. I would ask Citiboy Act to not move amendment 158 because it is intended to begin consultation with stakeholders on the proposed content of such regulations shortly after completion of the bill's passage through the Scottish Parliament, of which stakeholder engagement is an absolutely essential part of that process. Amendment 68, if agreed, will provide the land on which there is a building or other structure, which is a home that will no longer be excluded from the right to buy when that home is occupied by a person as a tenant. Amendment 159 is currently land-classed as Bonavocansia, which is onalys property, or land that falls to the crown as Altamus herias, which happens when no living relative can be found to inherit land that belongs to a deceased person, is excluded from the definition of eligible land. Such land falls to the crown through the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembranser, and the amendment seeks to remove Bonavocansia land or land that falls to the crown as Altamus herias from the list of such excluded land and thereby allow it to be subject to part 3A application. There are good reasons why Bonavocansia and Altamus herias land is excluded from the definition of eligible land. The remembranser does not seek to retain land, so it may be unwilling to retain land for a sufficient length of time to allow a part 3A acquisition to be completed. The remembranser's overall function is to dispose of such land for the benefit of the public purse, so it is not in the remembranser's interest to retain land because there is no disposable income that will be generated and she is not resourced to manage such land on an on-going or long-term basis. The remembranser also seeks to avoid retaining land because of the risks of liabilities arising in relation to it, and it follows from the sources of land falling to the crown as Bonavocansia that it can often be in a poor condition, bringing with it the risk of future problems, liabilities and expense if the crown interest in it is not resolved. In circumstances where land has fallen to the crown as Bonavocansia or Ultimaherias land, the community body has the option of contacting the remembranser with a view to acquiring the land, so there would, in such circumstances, be no need to rely on the part 3A process, and for those reasons I would ask Claudia Beamish to not move amendment 159. Amendment 69 is linked to amendment 68 and provides that ministers will have a regulation making power that will set out descriptions or classes of occupancy or possession, which are or are to be treated as a tenancy, which will be excluded from the right to buy abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. Amendment 161 adds any tenant of the land to the list of parties who must be identified in a part 3A application. Tenancies cannot be bought separately from the land under part 3A of the 2003 act. Placing a requirement on the part 3A community body to identify all tenants on the land would ensure that those tenants are fully involved in the community right to buy process and give them the opportunity to contribute to that process, not only as a member of the community but as an individual who could be directly impacted by any transfer of ownership. I support amendment 161. Amendment 164 adds any tenant of the land to the list of parties who must be invited to comment by the Scottish ministers on a part 3A application. That would require the Scottish ministers to identify all tenants of the land. Although section 97G9A3 of the 2003 act will already allow ministers to invite written comments on the application from tenants on the land, the amendment introduces a specific obligation to do so, and I support amendment 164. Amendment 135 updates the definition of inland waters in part 3 of the 2003 act. Thank you. I call Sarah Boyat to speak to amendment 158 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Under section 97C, ministers will be required to make regulations setting out what factors they must have regard to when deciding whether land is, in their opinion, eligible under part 3A. The definition of eligible land was a key aspect to the rural affairs committee's consideration of the bill, and there are a number of amendments to come on that subject later on. However, getting the detail of how the eligibility of the land is to be judged will therefore be crucial. At stage 2, I lodged amendments that would have required ministers to consult on the required regulations within a year of royal assent. At that time, I listened to the minister's assurances that consultation forms a key part of the regulation making process, and I welcomed that assurance. However, I am keen to see that questions around how the eligibility of the land is to be judged are settled at the earliest opportunity, and I am concerned that, with the land reformat coming so close in the heels of community empowerment, there is a risk that regulations for both bills to be bundled and delayed further down the line. My amendment 158 would require a draft statutory instrument containing those regulations to be laid in front of Parliament within 18 months of royal assent. The minister, in her opening remarks, committed to consultation immediately after passage of the bill, but can she clarify when she expects those statutory instruments to be in force? I think that that is quite important to clarify. I also briefly want to comment on the question of the Alec Ferguson amendments number 161 and 164. I think that the principle of the amendments is very reasonable because it makes the point about ensuring tenants have a right to comment, as well as owners, but I would like to ask for clarity from the minister as to what would happen if a community cannot identify the tenants having used their best endeavours. Would that potentially knock out their application and would that invalidate their application? I would be very keen to get the minister to clarify that question in her closing remarks. amendment 159 was initially submitted at stage 2 by Sarah Boyack and concerns the exemption from part 3a of land that is owned and occupied by the Crown by virtue of its having been invested as Bonne of Acantia in the Crown or its having fallen to the Crown as ultimate herries. I do not intend to go into the definitions again, as the minister has highlighted these today already. However, at stage 2, clarification was sought on the need for the exemption when other Crown land is included by virtue of section 100 section 2 of the 2003 act. There is also no similar exemption from the definition of eligible crofting land in part 3 of the 2003 act, so I hope the minister will be able to comment on that in her closing remarks. In opening remarks of the committee at stage 2 and today, the minister provided background on the process for such land that is classed in these categories. Such land is claimed by the Crown through the Queen's and Law Treasurer's Remembrancer whose purpose is to seek to realise the value of any land through disposal or disclaimer. The minister has already highlighted that the Remembrancer does not seek to retain land and is not resource to manage land on an ongoing basis. The minister remarked that, in such circumstances where the land is in these categories, a community body has the option of contacting the Remembrancer with a view to acquiring the land, but my concern, finally, would be that, by specifically excluding such land, community bodies may be put off from potential interest. At the same time, including the land as eligible, would not prevent the QLTR from disposing of the land as usual unless there was a community interest, in which case the benefit to the community must surely carry some weight. I have lodged amendments 161 and 1664 to try to ensure that any tenant of a building or structure on land that is subject to a community purchase at least has the opportunity to give their views on a formal basis, having been duly identified in the process. I cannot help but believe that tenants are being somewhat discriminated against by the Government's amendment 68 and 69, which, to me, creates two separate types of homemakers, those who own their homes and those who rent it. If you own your own, you will not be impacted by a community right to buy, but if you rent it, you will be and possibly quite heavily. There also seems to me a unwritten principle inherent in the Government's amendments that suggest that a community will, per se and of necessity, be a more benevolent landlord than any individual or company. I do not accept that that would always be the case, and my amendments simply seek to redress some of the imbalance in favour of the tenant through those two amendments. I hope that the chamber will note that it is the Scottish Conservatives standing up for the interests of tenants in this bill. I will try to take on the board some of the points that have been raised. Amendment 68 and 69 ensure that communities are able to fully utilise the right to buy without risk that land is ineligible to the fact that it contains areas of land that are occupied by tenants as a home. I can clarify that amendment confers power to set out classes, etc., of occupancy, which are included in part 3A of the right to buy. In terms of the points that have been raised by Claudia Beamish and Sarah Boyack, if a community body did not identify a tenant, then it would mean that the application would not be compliant, but we will ensure that guidance is available to limit the risk of that happening. In terms of amendment 158, we intend to begin consultation with stakeholders on the proposed content of the instrument shortly after completion of the bill's passage through the Scottish Parliament. As I said in my opening remarks, stakeholder engagement is absolutely an essential part and parcel of that process, and the draft instrument will be laid before the Scottish Parliament as the Parliamentary timetable permits. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I think that we are all agreed in that case. We now move to group 16. I call amendment 66 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move amendment 66 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. The bill, Presiding Officer, will have passed, introduced on new part 3A into the 2003 act, which will give communities a right to buy land, which is, in the opinion of the Scottish ministers, wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected. Now, Mr Russell's amendment had sought to expand this at stage 2 to include land, which is in substantial need of sustainable development. Amendment 66 and 67 add provisions to widen the definition of eligible land to include land where the use or management of that land results in or causes harm, which is not negligible harm to the environmental wellbeing of a relevant community. Environmental wellbeing itself is not being defined for the purposes of the bill because I wanted to have a broadest meaning for the purposes of part 3A and not be restricted to harm caused by just the physical condition of the community. Harm to the environmental wellbeing of the community, for example, may affect the immunity of the community. That may include cases where the use or management of the land causes or results in harm to the communities such as the detrimental impact that a group of boarded up shops, unoccupied housing or algae-filled ponds, which are becoming health hazards, might have on a community's environmental wellbeing. Amendment 73-1992 changed the title of the register to be set up by the keeper of the registers of Scotland to the register of community interests in abandoned, neglected or detrimental land. Amendment 79 requires the community body to set it in their application why they consider the land as being used or managed in such a way as to result in or cause harm to the environmental wellbeing of the community if that is the basis for their application. Amendment 80 adds a provision that requires a community body to include details of any request that has been made to regulators to take action that could remedy or mitigate the harm. Amendment 91 provides landowners where relevant are invited to give information about whether they consider the use or management of their land is causing or resulting in harm to the environmental wellbeing of the community. Amendment 86 provides that in order to consent an application, Scottish ministers must be satisfied, in addition to existing criteria in section 97H, that the harm is unlikely to be removed by the current owner continuing to be the owner of the land. Ministers must also be satisfied that the community body has made a request to any relevant regulators to take action to remedy or mitigate the harm to the environmental wellbeing of the community and that the body's ownership of the land will be consistent with reducing the harm. Ministers will have the power to set out who the relevant regulators are. Amendment 67A and 67B give communities the right to apply to purchase land where the use or management of the land is resulting in or causing harm to the environmental and social wellbeing of the community. However, that introduces a double test in which both conditions must be met, thus making it more difficult for community bodies to satisfy the test. Social wellbeing, Presiding Officer, is a very broad concept, and by defining it separately from environmental wellbeing it becomes a distinct consideration. There has not been tying between stages 2 and 3 for the bill to consult fully on whether there is, and if so, to what extent evidence of harm is caused to the social wellbeing of communities as a result of the use or management of land. It would be important to do that before asking the Parliament to confer powers authorising compulsory acquisition of land. Therefore, the bill is now proposed to be amended by the Scottish Government as far as I consider appropriate to take matters at this time. Amendment 86A changes the criteria that must be satisfied before ministers can consent to an application that relates to the use or management of land that results in or causes harm to the environmental wellbeing of a relevant community, so that those criteria for ministerial consent apply if the part 3A community body is making an application on the basis that harm is being caused to both the environmental and social wellbeing of the relevant community. Amendment 86B requires that in order to consent to an application, ministers must be satisfied that the exercise by the part 3A community body of the right to buy is compatible with removing or substantially removing the harm to the environmental wellbeing and social wellbeing of the relevant community. Amendment 86C amends the definition of a relevant regulator so that a regulator will be relevant if it can be considered to be so having regard to the harm to the environmental and social wellbeing of the relevant community. Amendment 86D amends the definition of a regulatory function so that a regulatory function will be relevant if it can be considered to be so having regard to the harm to the environmental and social wellbeing of the relevant community. I appreciate the helpful intention of her amendments, given how hard everyone has been working on this particular issue to try to find the right way forward. I am certain that we are all trying to get to the same place, but it is just actually how we do this in the most effective way. By adding the and social dimension to the definition, that narrows the test for what constitutes eligible land from what it would be if amendment 67 were agreed because the harm caused must not only be environmental but also social. If the harm caused is environmental but not social, then land will not meet the test as it would not meet both elements. I am absolutely sure that it was not the intention to introduce an additional test for community bodies and that that was not the purpose of the amendment. I ask Sarah Boyack to withdraw amendments 67A, 67B, 86A and 86B, and the consequential amendments of 86C and 86D to ensure that that does not happen. It is also the Scottish Government's view that those amendments are out with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament on the basis that they do not provide sufficient for seeability for landowners. However, as I said before, I want to reassure our members that the definition of environmental wellbeing has a wide meaning and encompasses some of the social considerations. As I said earlier, we are not able to consult fully on extending the right to buy beyond what I have proposed in the Government amendments in this group. If Parliament were to widen the circumstances under which communities can acquire ownership of land through compulsory purchase, we would want to be clear about the evidence of the harm that the proposals would address and to consult on that to find a proportionate solution. However, what I will give, Presiding Officer, is my firm commitment to work with Sarah Boyack and other members of the RACI committee to look at any evidence that the use or management of land results in harm to the social wellbeing of communities, and I will seek to do so at the earliest opportunity. Amendment 138 provides that the ministerial power introduced by amendment 86 is subject to the affirmative procedure, and last amendment 146 amends the long title of the bill to include abandoned, neglected or detrimental land due to the widening of the definition of eligible land for the purposes of part 3A of the 2003 act. Thank you. I now call on Sarah Boyack to speak to amendment 67a and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. At stage 2 of the bill, we spent a considerable amount of time in our committee debating and discussing the definition of abandoned and neglected land for the purposes of part 3A. Across the committee, there was concern that the terms abandoned and neglected might be seen as too narrow ignoring the social, economic and environmental impact on communities. Amendments were moved at stage 2 by Michael Russell, seeking to embed the concept of sustainable development into part 3A. I still do not fully accept the reluctance of the Scottish Government bill team to include reference to sustainable development, because I think that it is a very useful term. Again, the minister said that she does not believe it to be sufficiently precise and she would wish to carry out more consultation. However, I note the Scottish Government amendment that the minister is laying today. It is a very helpful amendment. I am grateful to the minister for engaging with discussions in the Rural Affairs Committee in the period since stage 2, because we have had the opportunity to press the Scottish Government to ask questions of the minister and her officials. I understand that the Scottish Government's preferred approach has been to pursue the term environmental wellbeing. A key purpose in proposing my amendments for consideration today is to probe what that means in practice. I was listening very carefully to the minister's comments. The wider definition that she has put forward and is on the record in the chamber today is helpful that it includes social wellbeing. It is important that we have that on the record, that environmental wellbeing is seen in the broader context, that it is not just physical condition, that it is important for urban and rural communities, that it is about the use and management of the land and, crucially, the phrase that she used about boarded-up shops, which could mean boarded-up buildings that have been left vacant for some time, or ponds that are causing harm. I think that those are very useful comments to have on the record. The impact on human health, on social wellbeing and being seen as part of environmental wellbeing are really helpful to us in moving forward. My amendments were intended to be probing. I think that I have received the exact result that I was after this afternoon, in the context of what can be done at a stage 3 debate. I welcome the minister's comments, and I will not be moving my amendments. When I looked for definitions of environment via Google, I got two related. The surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal or plant lives or operates. Secondly, the natural world is a whole or, in a particular geographic area, especially affected by human activity. It is entirely possible to encapsulate the question of human communities and individuals within the term environment. Therefore, environmental wellbeing, as proposed by the minister, as far as I can see, fits the bill. Environmental harm can include harm to all of those as well. Social is included in environmental, and therefore there is no need to delineate it, as was argued earlier. Landlords across Scotland have behaved in ways in which advantage or disadvantage the environment and communities. Communities deserve the right to access parcels of land to give their future a fair chance. By using the word environment in this sense, we have the circular context of social nature of which we are a part and of which the land is a part. That is very satisfactory as far as I can see. I see the minister accepts that approach, and I am glad to hear that, but will the courts accept that particular definition of environment? That question we await answers once the bill, if it is passed, is then tried in the courts, as it will be. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Our stated public position on right to buy has always been that we would not support such a concept in the absence of a willing seller. However, through a combination of constituency experience and evidence given to the Rural Affairs Committee, we accept that there are situations where, in extremists, that would merit such a right. I hope that shift in position is recognised for what it is, but I also have great sympathy with the law society's view that an urban rural split of legislation would have been welcome in this section of the bill. We would have supported this measure had it only applied to wholly abandoned or neglected land. Such a definition, I believe, would have been clearly defined in law and been seen to be black and white, if you like, a black and white issue in the event of this legislation coming into force. While I commend the Minister for her efforts to secure agreement from the Rural Affairs Committee members since stage 2—and I commend on that—I am sorry to say that we cannot support it. For the simple reason that I think we believe her expanded definition of eligible land is not black and white and would inevitably require a judgment to be made by who knows who. It might be the courts, as Rob Gibson has intimated, but we do not know who. In relation to the definition and whether the land in question would be eligible under the right to buy an equally inevitably, that has the potential to open up the process to political intervention, and that is something that we cannot support. Labour's amendments would, in our view, expand the definition even further, so regretfully—and I do mean regretfully—we will not be supporting those amendments. No comment, Mike Russell. This clause, of course, is at the heart of the community right to buy part of this bill. It is about public benefit, not just about private ownership. I have the greatest degree of sympathy, as Sarah Boyack knows, with the approach that she has taken. Indeed, I think that almost unanimously across the committee, clearly not unanimously in terms of what Alex Ferguson has said, there was a view that the original draft in this bill was not adequate in order to meet the test that would be laid upon it by the courts and will be laid upon it by the courts. The issue of abandoned neglected land goes also to the heart of what we are trying to change in Scotland. It may certainly bridge the rural and urban in Scotland, because there are many places in which abandoned and neglected buildings in cities and towns would be ripe for community ownership and the proper use by communities, just as there are abandoned and neglected areas of land throughout rural Scotland that need to be used and used productively. It is about how land is used as that common asset that should be the issue that should drive us forward. It is about opportunity and about aspiration, but it has been very difficult to find the right way to define that. The issue of sustainable development in all our views should be possible to define legally quite easily. It has been used in legal judgments before now, but there is a reluctance to believe that it has a meaning and a strength that can carry forward in every court case, particularly in issues of European competence. Something had to be found. I commend the minister for the work that she and her officials have done to continue to try and find a proper meaning. The issue of environmental wellbeing and environmental harm at least gets us on the road of trying to place in legislation and in legal understanding and in public understanding how land can be left in a bad condition and a bad state in private and public ownership, because it is not just private ownership and the ways in which communities are then empowered to move forward. I am very glad that the minister has shown herself still to be flexible and I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for acknowledging that, because now we will have to see this tested and tested in terms of communities aspirations. If the legislation stands those tests as a result of the amendments today, then we will have done a very good thing for communities of Scotland. If it does not stand those tests, we will have to return to that to strengthen the opportunity for Scotland's communities to use the asset that is all around them, which sometimes they cannot even get close to. I am very conscious of time, so I will keep this as short as I can to say that I appreciate the comments from across the chamber and to say that I firmly believe that the amendments in 67 and 86 are an important step in the right direction for increasing community ownership, and I would ask that all members support those amendments as a result of our discussion. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are division. This will be a one-minute division, so please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 66 is, yes, 102, no, 14, there were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 67, in the name of the minister, minister to move formally. I now call amendment 67A, in the name of Sarah Boyack. Already debate with amendment 66, Sarah Boyack, to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. So I call amendment 67B, in the name of Sarah Boyack. Sarah Boyack, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 150. So the question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore there will be a division, a 32nd division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 67 is, yes, 101, no, 14, there were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 158, in the name of Sarah Boyack, Sarah Boyack, to move or not move? Moved. Only thanks. So the question is amendment 158 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 158 is, yes, 47, no, 68, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 68, in the name of the minister, to move. Many thanks. So the question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. Therefore there will be a division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 68 is, yes, 103, no, 14, there were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 159, in the name of Claudia Beamish, to move or not move. Moved. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 159 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 159 is, yes, 34, no, 82, there were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 69 through to 78, all in the name of the minister. I invite the minister to move amendment 69 to 78 on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendment 69 to 78? There is no member who appears to object. The question is that amendment 69 to 78 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. I will now move to group 17. I call amendment 160 in the name of Sarah Boyack. I remind members that if amendment 160 in this group is agreed to, we cannot call amendment 161 already debated in group 15. Sarah Boyack to move amendment 160 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Under the current provisions in part 3A of the bill, ministers must refuse consent unless they are satisfied that the owner of the land is accurately identified in the application. Discussing the matter with Community Land Scotland, concern was highlighted that this sets a high bar for community bodies, given the complex process of determining ownership. At stage 2, I lodged amendments that would give flexibility to ministers where a community body could demonstrate that it exercised all reasonable diligence in seeking to identify the owner. I listened carefully to the minister's concerns that, to allow a sale without an identified owner, we deny that owner the right to respond to the application. I understand that the Scottish Government would prefer to complete the land register to make it easier for owners to be identified. However, I am conscious that this is a longer-term ambition, so my amendment 160 seeks to return to the subject. In the light of the minister's comments at committee stage, my amendment 160 focuses on the application stage rather than on ministerial consent. It would allow a community body, in applying for consent, to either specify the owner or provide details of the steps that it had taken to identify the owner. Where an owner is not identifiable, the community body could request ministers to undertake the task on their behalf. Amendments 162 and 163 are consequential, reflecting the change that is made by amendment 161 in relation to the requirement for a community body to send the copy of the application to the owner and for ministers to invite comments from the owner. Amendment 164 is also consequential and returns to the criteria for consent in relation to the identification of the owner. Now, when the rural committee was in Orkney at the weekend, we actually had a member of the public raising the problem of identifying the owner in relation to land ownership. So it is a real issue for people and until we have a complete register, there will be cases where it is difficult to identify exactly who the owner is. And my amendments aim to address that problem. I hope that they will be supported. Thank you. Thank you. Now calling the minister. To keep this short, I do firmly believe that these amendments should be withdrawn. Is the responsibility of the part 3A community body which wishes to purchase the land to take steps to identify the correct land owner? Community bodies may be reassured that guidance will be provided suggesting steps of the community body should, if appropriate, take when identifying the owner of the land. Amendment 160 does not provide that there will be prescribed steps which the part 3A community body must take to trace the land owner. And without minimum requirements, I believe that this could place a considerable burden on ministers to take action to identify land owners on behalf of part 3A community bodies. Although I do understand and appreciate the need to ensure that there is transparency, and we are committed to improving the transparency of land ownership in Scotland by working towards a target to complete the land registered for the whole of Scotland within 10 years, and with registration of all public sector land in five years. So I urge Cereboy Act to consider withdrawing amendments 160, 162, 163 and 166. Many thanks. Cereboy, to wind up and press with draw your amendment, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Ten years is a long time if we want to get going in opening opportunities, and there are still circumstances in Scotland where ownership is not clear, where it's hidden, and where people are avoiding saying who owns land or property. So I think this is an important issue, and I would like to press my amendment. I move. Many thanks. So the question is that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division this, but there are one minute divisions, so please vote now. So the result of the voting amendment 160 is yes, 37, no, 65. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 161 in the name of Alex Ferguson to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. So the question is that amendment 161 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. I now call amendment 79 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 66. Minister to move formally Many thanks. So the question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 80 in the name of the minister. Minister to move formally. Call moved. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 162 in the name of Sarah Boyack and Sarah Boyack to move or not. Move. Many thanks. Question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. They will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote in amendment number 162 is yes 39. No 78. There are no abstentions in the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 163 in the name of Sarah Boyack Sarah Boyack to move or not. Not moved. Thank you. I now call amendment 164 in the name of Alex Ferguson Alex Ferguson to move or not. Move. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 164 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. Now I call amendment 81 in the name of the minister minister to move formally. Formally moved. Many thanks. So the question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are indeed. Many thanks. We now move to group 18. I call amendment 165 in the name of Claudia Beamish group amendment 167. I invite Claudia Beamish to move amendment 165 and speak to both amendments in the group. And I can tell Parliament that we've now caught up with our time and would not wish to curtail the beat. Claudia Beamish. Right. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Good news for all, no doubt. My amendment in this group 165 concerns the new section 97G and deals with the process of applying to exercise the right to buy land under part 3A of the 2003 act. Subsection 10D of that section requires ministers to invite views from the landowner, creditors and others about any proposals that the owner has for the land. My amendment seeks to relieve concerns that in order to avoid a community right to buy an owner could create spurious proposals for the development of this land. The amendment would give ministers the option of prescribing what would constitute a proposal for land, what evidence would need to be provided to demonstrate that a proposal exists and other information as ministers deem appropriate. Such an approach would give guidance to owners and clarity to communities. Thank you. I can ask Sarah Boyack to speak to amendment 167 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My amendment in this group 167 concerns the new section 97H, which sets out the matters in which ministers must be satisfied before consenting to a part 3A community right to buy. Subsection 1G of that section requires ministers to be satisfied that the community body has tried and failed to buy the land by other means than a right to buy. This is in recognition of the policy intention indicated by the minister in evidence at stage 2 that the part 3A right to buy should only be used as a last resort. My amendment 167 seeks to provide clarity to community bodies to help them understand what would constitute trying and failing to buy the land. They would be considered to have satisfied this requirement if they provide ministers with evidence in a prescribed form to demonstrate that they took certain actions to try and buy the land. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm afraid again that we can't support these amendments because on the grounds that we are concerned that they give even more powers to ministers through conferring an ability to decree what constitutes an effort to buy or sell land or indeed what constitutes a proposal for the land in question that is overly prescriptive. If there are genuine concerns about these issues, then I think it is not Scottish ministers who should determine them but some other organisation. Thank you, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In terms of amendments 165 and 167, I do not consider it necessary or desirable to provide in regulations what information a land owner should provide in connection with any proposals he may have for the land or what steps a community body should take or evidence they should provide when the community body tries to buy the land. It could be that prescribed actions may not be relevant or prescribed steps may not be possible in all circumstances and this could cause difficulties to community bodies or to land owners if they are unable to comply with certain prescribed requirements. The community body would be expected to provide all information and evidence it considers is necessary, appropriate or relevant relating to attempts it made to buy the land. It would then be for ministers to be satisfied that the community body has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that it had tried and failed to buy the land. Similarly, the land owner would be expected to provide all information and evidence they consider is necessary, appropriate or relevant relating to proposals that they have for the land. For those reasons, I urge Clodra Beamish to withdraw amendment 165 and Zidra Boyack to withdraw amendment 167. Many thanks in our call, Clodra Beamish, to wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with draw, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm not convinced by the minister's arguments in this particular case on the amendment and I've moved. Thank you. The question then is that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the voting amendment number 165 is yes, 40. No, 79. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 166 in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 160, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Moved. The question then is that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. A 32nd division this time. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 166 is yes, 39. No, 79. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendments 82, 83, 84 and 85, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 82 to 85 on block. Please. Moved on block. Thank you. Can I now ask are there any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 82 to 85? No member does object. Therefore, the question is that amendments 82 to 85 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 86 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 66 and asked the minister to move formally. Please. Only moved. And I now call amendment 86A in the name of Sarah Boyack. Already debated with amendment 66 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. Not moved. Not moved. Therefore, I call amendment 86B in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 66 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 86C in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 66 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. Not moved. And call amendment 86D in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 66 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. Not moved. Yйna. ymhetnt nesaf â bBERK rheidain 86 ym repaired sut nesaf angen aldu'r rhaid nesaf всеys a rhaid ie mić unrhaid 87 o'n yr enhygfer os yn mynd i tower wedi ar percar monte rhaid ffragio rhaid seleff yn llawer nesaf angen allwm yr markpen hwnni nee rhaid Stri buspan nesaf angen hwnni amendment 167, in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 165 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Question then is that amendment 167 be agreed to or we all agreed? We are not agreed. This will be a 30-second division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment 167 is yes, 38, no, 78. There were no abstentions in the amendment, so we are not agreed to. Amendment 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 88 to 94 on block. I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 88 to 94. Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 88 to 94 are agreed to or we all agreed. That brings us to group 19, mediation in relation to rights under parts 23 and 38 of the 2003 act at a call amendment 95, in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, grouped with amendment 143. I ask the minister to move amendment 95 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Amendment 95 is introduced following the lodging of amendment grime day stage 2 the bill, which was agreed to and inserted provisions relating to ministers' facilitation of mediation in relation to parts 23 and the new part 3A of the Land Reform Scotland act 2003. Amendment 95 replaces those provisions with new mediation provisions that achieve the same policy intention. The new powers are for ministers upon a request by certain persons, including owners of land and community bodies, to take such steps as they consider appropriate for the purposes of arranging or facilitating the arrangement of mediation in relation to a proposed registration of an interest in land under part 2 or exercise of the right to buy under parts 23 and the new 3A. The new provisions clarify that the power of ministers to facilitate mediation includes the power to appoint a mediator and make payments to mediators either for payment of services or for reimbursement of expenses. Amendment 143 removes paragraph 25A of schedule 4 to the bill, which amendment 95 replaces. Many thanks, Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer, simply to speak in support of the minister's amendment 95 and stress the importance from our perspective of the mediation issues and the payment arrangements. Sorry, can I check if Graham Day was indicating that he wished to contribute? No, thank you. Can I ask the minister to wind up? I would like to thank, Presiding Officer, Graham Day for bringing forward amendments at stage 2 in mediation. Those amendments ensure that it can be used by all parties all relevant steps in the right to buy process. I would ask the members to support those amendments and I would like to also thank the support from Claudia Beamish. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Sorry, I've called that again. Are we all agreed? We are. Group 20, asset transfer request, appeals reviews, prohibition on disposal of land and a call amendment 96 in the name of the minister for local government and community empowerment this time. Group with other amendments shown on the groupings and I ask the minister to move amendment 96 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you and it's good to be back. The government amendments in this group fall into four sets. First, amendments 96 and 100 provide for a community transfer body to appeal to the Scottish ministers if they have been unable to conclude a contract with the relevant authority within a specified period after an asset transfer request has been agreed. At stage 2, the committee agreed an amendment from Cameron Buchanan, which I also supported to introduce an appeal in these circumstances. Those amendments seek to implement that intention more effectively. Rather than relying on the existing appeal process, which would return the process to an earlier stage, they set a new appeal specifically for this purpose. Amendments 97, 98 and 99 are to ensure that a relevant authority cannot sell or lease a property to someone else while an asset transfer request is in progress. Amendment 16 is to ensure that a community transfer body cannot make an offer in relation to an asset transfer request and, at the same time, appeal or seek a review in relation to a decision about a request. Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are technical amendments to clarify references to certain sections where they are applied and modified by other sections. That brings me to Cameron Buchanan's amendment. Cameron Buchanan's amendment would mean that, if a relevant authority declines to consider a repeated request, as it is entitled to do under section 61, that request would then become subject to appeal or review. That would make a nonsense of the whole section, which is important in order to give relevant authorities the scope to decline repeated or vexatious requests in limited circumstances and without the risk of further appeal. I would ask Cameron Buchanan not to move amendment 172, and I move amendment 96. I now ask Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 172 and the other amendments in the group, please. First of all, I agree with all the other amendments in that group, apart from amendment 172, which seeks to remove the word not from the subsection 3 of section 61 so that a refusal of an asset transfer request due to a similar previous request can be reviewed or appealed. Without a right of appeal or review, community transfer bodies could be excluded from participation on unfair basis. I would like to make it clear that I am not making any assumptions, but I am interested in only ensuring that the communities are protected from unfair exclusion. The ability to instantly refuse participation should therefore not be used unless it is very clear that it is a repeated request, which is a right of appeal or review will ensure that the relevant authorities adhere to this. On this basis, we also consider that amendments 17 and 18 raised concerns because they extend the Government's position that a refusal of an asset transfer request due to a similar previous request may not be appealed or reviewed. We think that a community transfer body should have a right of appeal under section 58 or a review under section 59 so that it ensures fair participation without allowing repeated challenges to the authorities' decision. Many thanks. Malcolm Chisholm. I certainly welcome those amendments. As the minister knows, there is great interest in my constituency in terms of the transfer of land. I still cannot see any reference to arms-length bodies or allios in the bill, so perhaps the minister could confirm that all of that will apply to allios, as well as local authorities. In relation to amendment 99, there is concern that notwithstanding the progress that there has been and the right of appeal, perhaps section 99 suggests that, if it has been advertised before the application has been made, the land could still be disposed of. I do have some concerns about amendment 99, although I may not totally understood it as well, but in general I certainly welcome those amendments. Many thanks. Can I now ask the minister to wind up, please? Thank you. To respond to Cameron Buchanan's point, which is the crux here, it is important that there is an appeals process, but any transfer request that has happened in the last two years would have been potentially subject to that appeals process the first time around. That is to stop an asset transfer request from happening, being refused, appealing, being refused and then being brought back and being able to trigger the appeals process for a second time. Where it has been through that process already, I think that it is important to then have a cooling off period of two years whereby persistent and repeated requests that may already, as I say, have been through the appeals process can be declined, so I would hope that he would withdraw. Many thanks. The question then is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 97, 98, 99, 13, 14, 15, 100 and 16, all in the name of the minister for local government community empowerment and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 97 to 99, 13 to 15 and 116 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 97 to 99, 13 to 15, 116? No. In which case the question is that amendments 97 to 99, 13 to 15, 116 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I will just check him on the right page. Now I call amendment 172 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 96 and to ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not to move. The amendment has been moved. Therefore, the question is that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will be a division and this is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 172 is yes, 47. No, 72. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, all in the name of the minister for local government community empowerment and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 17 to 20 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 17 to 20? Members do object. We will put these amendments individually. Question then is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 17 is yes, 101. No, 17. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Question then is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 18 is yes, 103. No, 16. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The question now is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The next question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 21, supporter involvement in football clubs. I call amendment 174, in the name of the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health, grouped with the other amendments shown in the groupings. I ask the Minister to move amendment 174 and to speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and at the outset, can I thank Alison Johnstone for her work on this issue and starting an important debate on fan involvement and ownership of football clubs? Football plays a huge part in the lives of thousands of people across every community in Scotland, so it is good to have this debate. I know that Scottish Football has experienced more than its fair share of challenges with many high-profile clubs, changing owners and experiencing financial challenges whilst this is in itself not unusual for a commercial organisation, given so many are firmly embedded in their local community. Given the emotional investment that supporters have in their club, there can be a disproportionate impact of a club where to be wound up and why therefore it is so important that long-term sustainability is at the centre of each club's decision making. That is why this Scottish Government believes that supporters should have a greater role in the life of their club. However, the significant amendments that were submitted to the community empowerment bill at stage 2 would see significant changes to how clubs would be required to operate in Scotland. They have already set out the Government's support for greater support and involvement, very supportive of the sentiment behind Alison Johnstone's stage 2 amendments. However, the Scottish Government has a number of concerns about those amendments, both in terms of how they could operate, but more importantly, the potential for unintended consequences. I am also concerned that there has not been as extensive consultation on those proposals to ensure that we capture the full range of views on that issue. Therefore, I have been in active discussions with all Opposition spokespersons on this to explain my reservations and concerns, but also, more importantly, to explore how best we can move forward and place on record my thanks to them, particularly Alison Johnstone, who initiated the amendments at stage 2. Although I believe that there is broad agreement here that we need to do more, it would be wrong to claim that we have the answer without consulting fully first. That is why I intend to launch a comprehensive consultation on the issue, and I shared a draft of the consultation with Opposition spokespersons last week and tabled a copy, especially yesterday, and brought it to the attention of all members through the Office of the Minister for Parliament to Business. Again, I thank Opposition spokespeople for their time in helping to formulate the draft consultation, as well as those supporters' organisations that my officials contacted to discuss the matter with too. I trust that the draft consultation demonstrates that the Government is open to the principle of bringing forward regulations that will protect supporters' rights, and I hope that sharing an early draft of that has helped members to understand the context of the Scottish Government amendments, which provide a framework for the introduction of a full range of options being consulted upon—namely, a right to buy, a right to bid, a right to govern, and a right to be involved. I note that Alison Johnstone has put forward a number of amendments to the Government's proposed amendments. In summary, although it may be felt that those amendments are reasonable for the specific system that we may create through the order-making power, I believe that those amendments prejudge the consultation, and that is why we will not be supporting them. Presiding Officer, I can confirm that the specific provisions of Alison Johnstone's amendments have influenced the draft consultation. I have referred to already that those are areas that we will seek to use to inform our regulations. I genuinely believe that it is important to have that consultation first before determining the specifics of the regulations. On that basis, we urge Alison Johnstone not to move those particular amendments. Presiding Officer, as, hopefully, members will be aware, our approach to developing this amendment in consultation has been guided by helpful cross-party engagement and without seeking to pre-empt the consultation. The chamber can be assured that it has my intent to continue to work with all members who may be interested in the issue. I look to your support in ensuring that whatever legislative solution is developed protects the rights of fans, is both workable and is not detrimental to Scottish football. On that basis, I move amendment 174 in my name. Many thanks. I now ask Alison Johnstone to move amendment 174A and speak to all of the amendments in the group. Please, Ms Johnstone. The bill Parliament is considering today is designed to give power to communities across Scotland. It is not the first word on that, nor will it be the final word, but it is an important step on this journey. As members will know from the point at which the proposals for the bill were published, I have sought to have football fans recognised as important communities and to have football clubs recognised as important community assets. I am pleased therefore to have persuaded the Scottish Government to include the powers to bring in a fans right to buy their clubs in their amendments, which, in a spirit of consensus, I will be supporting today, even though they will also delete my more detailed right to buy proposals which the local government and regeneration committee approved unanimously at stage 2. We know that a fans right to buy is popular. It was backed by more than 80 per cent of the Scottish fans and members of Scottish organisations who responded to our consultation earlier this year and more than 75 per cent of the Scottish public backed it when we polled last year. Some owners are against it, of course, just as some landowners opposed land reform, but other owners want a flexible and sustainable exit strategy, and those measures give them the reassurance that they need that their clubs won't fall into the hands of irresponsible owners in future. I support the proposal by Scottish ministers to conduct a further round of consultation on the issue, though I should say however that the draft text of the consultation that is circulated by ministers could be paraphrased as, here's a terrible idea, don't you think? I urge ministers to produce a more neutral and informative final document. With regard to the four amendments that I brought today, I apologise to Parliament that they had to be brought in extra time. But the timing of the Government's amendments left me no choice. They may seem modest refinements to the minister's proposals, but they cover four important issues that the Scottish Government's approach doesn't resolve. My amendments 1, 4, 7, b and 1, 7, 6, a provide important protections for both fans and owners. 1, 7, 4, b ensures that any fans group wishing to exercise a right to buy must be open to all supporters, affordable and democratic. Such protections can likely be introduced in regulations, but my amendment would put the protection on the bill itself. 1, 7, 6, 8 explicitly requires any fans' right to buy to be offset by an owner's right of appeal. That is an important safeguard for owners, and without a right to buy would be open to challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights. Again, the protection for current owners can be brought in under regulations, but they are important enough, in my view, to be on the face of the bill. 1, 7, 4, 8 concerns funding for fan buy-outs. In this instance, there is no provision in the Scottish Government's amendments that would permit grants or loans to support buy-outs. We know from trusts across the country, large and small, that this is frequently the hurdle to a fan buy-out, just as it has been with land reform. The foundation of Hart's fan bid would have gone nowhere without a loan from Anne Budge, and the amendment would allow ministers to play the same role if they are satisfied that there is a good business model and a public interest in supporting it. A few tens of thousands might make the difference between a wee club surviving and unfolding, with all the economic and social impacts that that has on our community. Finally, 1, 7, 4, 6 sets a timescale for bringing regulations. I would be grateful if the minister could say when he will decide whether he plans to use the power of Parliament as likely to give the Government today. That is not a request to prejudge the consultation. Ministers will be free at the end of this to retain, in my view, a failing status quo, but I think that those filling in the consultation over the summer should know when they can expect to hear back from the Government. With a clear commitment of that sort, I will not move amendment 1, 7, 4, 6, and finally, Presiding Officer, truly finally, I therefore urge members to vote for all the substantive amendments on this issue, both those in my name and those in the name of the minister, and I move amendment 1, 7, 4, 8. Thank you. Many thanks. I invite Nigel Dawn on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to speak to amendment 1, 8, 0 and other amendments in the group, please, Mr Dawn. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. At the meeting on the 9th of June, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the bill as amended at stage 2 and agreed to call on the Scottish Government to amend the bill at stage 3 in order that the powers in section 62 E, F, I, K and P were fully cast as powers to make subordinate legislation subject to the negative procedure and to clarify by defining the terms prescribed and prescribed, or by such other means as considered appropriate, who the powers were conferred upon and what form the subordinate legislation made in their exercise were intended to take. Now, in the event that the Government's stage 3 amendments did not cover this recommendation, the committee authorised the deputy convener and myself to table suitable amendments. As the government did not lodge such amendments, I have on behalf of the committee lodged amendments 180, 182, 186, 189 and 195 in order to give effect to the committee's recommendations. I appreciate the Scottish Government's movement of amendments, which actually remove the section to which my amendments relate and has provided for this new approach in order to issue a supporter ownership and supporter involvement in football clubs. I further appreciate that, from what we've heard so far, it seems like this new approach will prevail and therefore the issue to which these amendments respond will no longer be relevant. With that in mind, I should say that I do not expect to move these amendments when I'm invited to do so. Nonetheless, it is the role of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to provide a check on the delegated powers in the bill as amended at stage 2, not to presuppose what might happen at stage 3. It is with that principle in mind that we, as a committee, agreed to lodge these amendments, and it is with that principle in mind that we will continue to apply cross-crutiny to delegated powers in bills as amended, ensuring that those powers are appropriately drawn, justified and subject to sufficient levels of scrutiny. One of the most encouraging developments at stage 2 in the bill was the opportunity Alison Johnstone spotted to bring forward her proposals on the right for football supporters to buy their local club. It has been Labour Party policy for many years and I was absolutely delighted that the committee unanimously supported the amendments, despite the minister's obvious misgivings about the amendments themselves. Since that point, the Government made it clear that, although it accepted the principle of right to buy, it wished to go down a different route and to consult first with the football community before publishing secretary legislation. I was only being with some reluctance and solely in the interests of achieving consensual cross-party agreement on this, that my Labour colleagues and I, along with the Greens and the other parties in the chamber, have accepted that position, but we will be absolutely supporting the Government's amendments in this section today. The Government's amendments on that point however were brought forward quite late, hence the later manuscript amendments from Alison Johnstone. I do not believe that there is anything in the four amendments that Alison Johnstone has brought forward that anyone could object to, certainly not insisting on the right of appeal for owners, nor out of suggested on ensuring that supporters' organisations should be open and democratic. On timing, I think that what we are all looking for is some indication from the minister as to when the replacement regulations will be brought forward. On funding, that is not a request for public money to support professional football, because we would not support such a request. It is simply asking for the power for ministers to award grants, in fact to consult on their power to award grants, just as they might often exercise the power to award small grants to any local organisation to improve its capacity to make a difference in its local community. We would urge the Government and everyone to vote for all amendments in this section. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I first thank both the minister, Jamie Hepburn, and Alison Johnstone for their very helpful engagement prior to today's stage three in what is a complex part of the bill. I think that the vast majority of people that recognise the very good intentions and the attempts by Alison Johnstone to provide a community-based approach to football—in particular, I think that their attempts to provide football fans with the transparent, democratic and accountable processes to underpin the organisation of football in this country are laudable, as is the attempt to ensure that there is much better communication between football supporters and club management. Football, let's be honest, has not been in a very good place in recent years, with many supporters very disillusioned and very angry about the complete disconnect in many clubs between supporters, players and management in its various guises. That is not good for the game, and so it's absolutely right to address those concerns. That said, I think that there are very considerable complexities within this section of the bill, several of them in a legal context, and it's the view of the Scottish Conservatives that the amendments 174A, B and C and 176A, proposed by Alison Johnstone, have some unintended consequences, which could have serious effect in the long term for the sustainability of some clubs. Specifically, there remain some technical difficulties when it comes to defining football supporters and football clubs, and clearly the latter has a legal implication, mainly because it's very difficult to define specific assets and liabilities. The Scottish Government's deliberations over the right to influence, to govern, to bid and the right to buy also make clear the complexities and the need for further consultation on the likely legal implications. They also make clear the concerns about finance, particularly at a time of very considerable volatility within financial markets, and the model working group was very specific in advising that it was not the Scottish Government's responsibility to provide that financial support, and so clubs are rightly questioning in the future where they might turn to for that support. It's very fair to say that there are few supporters who want control over the day-to-day running of their club. What they do want is better communication, greater transparency and more accountability when it comes to the decision making. However, I think that that has to be in the context that we are absolutely 100 per cent sure of the legal implications of that, and that's why we will be supporting the Scottish Government's amendments and rejecting those put forward by Alison Johnstone. I can now ask the minister to wind up on amendment 174, please. Certainly, Presiding Officer. First of all, I say to Nigel Oedd, thank you for his amendments. Thank you for his remarks. I think that he's covered it. I appreciate why this Government didn't lodge the particular amendments that his committee called for, because of course we've taken a different approach. Let me say and I hope that this provides Alison Johnstone with a degree of reassurance this Government is committed to bringing forward legislation using regulations on this important issue. That's the first point that I would like to make. I do think that it is important that we consult fully on this issue before we bring forward that legislation. I think that there's been a talk, and Liz Smith rightly said about the unintended consequences. We want to make sure that there aren't any. That's why we want to have this full consultation. As I referred to earlier, Presiding Officer, I have provided the draft consultation document to all members. It was issued to Opposition sports persons last week. I would encourage all members to feed their views into this before it is launched imminently. We want to undertake this exercise as soon as possible. There is still time for members to feed into that process. In that regard, I can say to Alison George that it's certainly not this Government's intention to suggest that we're against the principles in the constitution. It's certainly not our intention to try and guide the outcome. If she has specific concerns, I would be very happy to speak to her about that particular issue. In relation to her specific manuscript amendments that she has brought forward, which Ken Macintosh referred to, let me be clear that I do not object in any way to the broad thrust of the principles that are contained within those amendments. I genuinely believe that it's important that we have a full consultation first before we determine the specifics of any mechanism that we bring forward. In that regard, in notwithstanding the concerns that have particularly been expressed about the consultation, there are a number of questions that relate directly to amendment 5 in the consultation and about the definition of assets in the context of a football club. Question 6 is about how to define what football supporter is and defining supporter groups. Question 8 is about raising the necessary funds. Question 10 is asking for views on the rights of appeal. The specifics of those amendments are something that we will take further evidence on before we determine the most appropriate way forward. In relation to the calls for a timeline, I appreciate the calls for a timeline in which we will use those amendments. It is important that we take the time to ensure that any regulations are effective and don't have any of those unintended consequences. I think that it's important that we don't come up with a substandard mechanism, so that may take a little time. I understand the desire for the Scottish Government to be clear on its use of the powers. We have set out an intention to consult. We are serious, as I said, at the outset about our use of those powers. We are just not clear yet how we will use those powers. The consultation will lead that, and some options that arise at that consultation may take longer than others. What I can say is that, depending on the complexity of the option that I identified through consultation, we would intend to bring forward the regulations between two and three years' time. Yes, of course. Alison Johnstone I wholeheartedly appreciate the minister's comments, particularly regarding the need to make sure that the consultation is thorough and appropriate, but you said that that may take a little time. Could you be perhaps a little more specific about when we... I am sorry that the intervener at the wrong time was literally just saying that our intention is within two to three years, and that is depending on the complexity of the particular regulation that we are bringing forward. We want to bring it forward as quickly as possible, so that is the broad timescale in which we intend operating. On that basis, I hope that members can support our approach. It is one that we think is open, participative and will, hopefully, allow us to have the best informed regulations at the end of the day. Let me conclude once more by thanking Alison Johnstone for raising this issue for working with me on this and urge the members to support our amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks and can I now ask Alison Johnstone to wind up on amendment 174A and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a very useful debate, and I would like in particular to thank Ken Macintosh and Tavish Scott for their support throughout the process, and I also welcome the minister's decision to accept that the powers to introduce a fan's right to buy should go into this bill. There has been wide-ranging support for the principle, and it will be interesting to know that even David Cameron, in response to a colleague at Westminster, noted that football clubs do sometimes find themselves in financial difficulty and that fan ownership would be a very positive move, so there is growing support for this. I think that this is a landmark proposal for Scottish football, which has seen club after club after club fall into administration or even disappear altogether, and fan ownership will not be for every club. We are talking about a mixed model with potential and flexibility, but during our consultation we were told that even those fans who are very happy with the way their clubs are run now want to know that this right is there for the future, just in case. They exist in culture of football where a small group of rich men can simply exclude all fans from decisions affecting their clubs has to end, and for too long fans have stood on the touchline, or perhaps even been sent to the stands while their club is sent to the wall, and nor is it good enough for fans just to be brought in to pick up the pieces after a Romanov or similar. Football is our national game, and football supporters, whether they want to buy their clubs or not, are its best custodians, and it really is time to put fans first. I would therefore encourage all members to vote for all amendments in this section, those in my name and those in the name of the minister, and I am therefore pressing amendment 174A. Thank you. Many thanks. In that case, the question is that amendment 174A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 174A is, yes, 40. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 174B, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask Alison Johnstone to move or not move. The question then is that amendment 174B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 174B is, yes, 39. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 174C, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask Alison Johnstone to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question then is that amendment 174C be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are not. Then there will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 174C is, yes, 40. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question now is that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendment 175, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Moved. Okay. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 176, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Thank you. I now call amendment 176A, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask Alison Johnstone to move or not to move. In that case, the question is that amendment 176A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 176A is, yes, 40. No, 76. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question then is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendments 177, 178, and 179, all in the name of the minister for sport, health, improvement and mental health, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 177 to 179 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 177 to 179? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 177 to 179 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 180, in the name of Nigel Don, on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which has already been debated with amendment 174. I ask Nigel Don to move or not to move. Not to move. I now call amendment 181, in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 174, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendment 182, in the name of Nigel Don, on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which has already been debated with amendment 174. I now ask Nigel Don to move or not to move. Not moved. I now call amendment 183, 184 and 185, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 183 to 185 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? In that case, the question is that amendments 183 to 185 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 186, in the name of Nigel Don, on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and already debated with amendment 187. I ask Nigel Don to move or not to move. Not moved. Not to moved. In that case, I now call amendment 187, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 174. I now ask the minister to move formally. Question is, that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 188, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 174. I now ask the minister to move formally. I now call amendment 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194, all in the name of the minister, in the name of Nigel Don, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194. I now call amendment 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 190 to 194 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 190 to 194 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 195, in the name of Nigel Don, in behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask Nigel Don to move or not move. Not moved. Therefore, we move to amendments 196, 197, 198 and 199, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 196 to 199 on block. Move, Presiding Officer. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 196 to 199? Since no member objects, the question then is that amendments 196 to 199 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 22, size of and request for particular sizes of allotments, et cetera, and I call amendment 101, in the name of the minister for environment, climate change and land reform, which is grouped with amendments 102, 103, 105, 107, 111, 112 and 122, and I ask the minister to move amendment 101 and speak to all amendments in the group, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Those amendments amend the provisions that relate to the size of an allotment. We all know that the issue of the size of allotments is of particular importance to a number of stakeholders, and it has been debated at length. It might therefore be helpful if, before addressing each amendment, I set out briefly some context. There are a number of ways in which people in Scotland are able to grow their own food. Those include community growing places and allotments, and it is important to distinguish carefully between those two. The most important distinction lies in the scale of operation, with allotments generally being of considerably greater size than community plots. The approach taken in the bill as amended will reflect those considerations, and, although there will be a large variety of sizes for allotments going forward, reflecting quite properly the different wishes of allotment holders and different practical considerations in each locality, the objective of the bill as amended is that allotments should be of around 250 square metres unless another size is agreed on a case-by-case basis between local authorities and individuals who are requesting an allotment. If we look at each of the amendments individually, amendment 105 provides that, when a person makes a request to lease an allotment, that person must, if the size of the allotment sought is less than 250 square metres, specify that smaller size in the request. Amendment 107 provides an entitlement to wait for an allotment of approximately 250 square metres until an allotment of that size is offered and also provides local authorities with flexibility to enable them to provide different sizes of allotments to meet the differing needs and wishes of their residents. Amendment 102 removes those amendments in relation to size of allotment agreed to at stage 2. Amendment 101 is a drafting change that is consequential to amendment 102. Amendment 103 removes the requirement for Scottish ministers to make regulations in connection with sizes of allotments. That is unnecessary now, given the amendments that are being brought forward on the size of allotments. I am conscious that those provisions may appear complex. For that reason, we will give particular attention to the guidance to be developed in this area, and we look forward to working very closely with our stakeholders on that. Amendments 111 and 112 make sure that when ministers decide whether to allow local authorities to dispose of an allotment site or renounce its lease, they must be satisfied not only that tenants will be offered a new allotment, but that it will be of the same or similar size. Amendment 122 allows the Scottish ministers to consent to a local authority resuming an allotment site or part of that site if the local authority has offered an affected tenant an allotment of the same or a similar area. The debate on allotment size has been long and at times difficult, and I am delighted that we have reached consensus with stakeholders on the way forward. I pay tribute to the collaborative work in recent weeks between the Scottish allotments and garden society, our local authorities and COSLA to achieve provisions that go as far as we can to meet the needs of all. In light of that consensus that is now secured around those amendments, I would urge you to support them, and I move the amendments to my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would agree that it is fair to say that it has taken some time and some effort, much effort indeed from the minister, from the members of the committee, and I think in particular from the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society to reach today's consensual position, but we will be supporting the Government amendments before us this afternoon. I would, however, welcome clarification on two points, if I may, on plot size. Ideally, we would have preferred to keep the definition of plot size in allotment in the bill. I think that it is still in section 70, the reference to 250 square metres. Can the minister confirm that, despite the removal of those amendments, it is still the Scottish Government's intention that the default size for allotments going forward will be 250 square metres unless someone wants a smaller plot? Secondly, on waiting lists, the introduction of the trigger points for waiting lists is to be deferred for three years to give local authorities the time to gear up and to plan for increasing provision. Can the minister confirm that people already on a local authority waiting list will have the length of time they have already waited, taken into account? Can the minister also confirm that it will not be acceptable for local authorities to simply sit around and do nothing about waiting lists for three years, but rather they will be expected to start preparing the ground for increased provision from the day of enactment? I would like to agree with amendments 101, 102, 103, 105 and 107 and speak about amendments 111, 112 and 122, which would instruct that the Scottish ministers may not consent to a change of use of an allotment site unless each tenant is offered an allotment of the same or similar size nearby. I do understand the motivation to protect allotment holders, but I am very concerned that these amendments would overly restrict local autonomy and be to the detriment of aspiring allotment holders in the long term. If power is truly to be devolved from the centre, local authorities should be able to decide whether changing use of an allotment site is in the local interest subject to protection from allotment holders. The existing provision that tenants should be offered another allotment nearby already does offer protection, whilst retaining the ability for local authorities to offer replacement allotments where they see fit. I rather fear that amendments 111, 112 and 122 would push the balance too far against autonomy so that local authorities would find it very difficult to change use of an allotment site, even if they considered it to be in the local interest. Furthermore, these amendments may be detrimental to allotment holders in the long term, as local authorities may be more reluctant to create new allotment sites in the knowledge that they may find it very difficult to change use in the future. This unfortunate consequence would see, I think, perhaps fewer allotment sites being created in the first place and therefore longer waiting lists for aspiring allotment holders. Many thanks. Can I now invite the minister to wind up, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I take on some of the points that have been raised by Ken Macintosh? If a person requests a particular size of allotment smaller than 250 square metres and is offered this size, then the request is treated as having been agreed, and that person's name will be removed from the waiting list. If that person is offered and accepts an alternative size, then the request is agreed and the person is taken off the waiting list. However, if that person does not take up the offer of the alternative size, the request is not agreed and the person is entitled to remain on the waiting list until the particular size that they have requested is offered. If a person wants an allotment of 250 square metres and has not requested a smaller size, the request is treated as agreed when an allotment of approximately 250 square metres is offered and the person is removed from the waiting list. If a person, lastly, has not requested an allotment smaller than 250 square metres and the person is offered and accepts an allotment other than one approximately 250 square metres in area, then the request is agreed and the person is also taken off the waiting list. However, should such a person be offered an allotment that is not approximately 250 square metres in area and does not take up the offer, the request is not agreed to and so the person remains on the waiting list. I hope that that gives you the clarification that you are looking for. The question then is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 23, sale of allotment produce. I call amendment 200 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, group with amendments 202, 203 and 213. I ask Cameron Buchanan to move amendment 200 and to speak to all of the other amendments in the group, please. Amendments 200, 203 and 213 would make it clear that surplus produce from allotments may be sold to make a profit because it is unclear why allotment users should be prevented from doing so. There would be an issue if large retailers were taking up allotments to supply their stores or local supermarkets, but I don't think that's what we're talking about. Small sales for relatively small amounts of money are not a cog in the corporate supply chain, but are instead a chance for waste to be avoided and compensation for hard work to be obtained where it's deserved. I think we're talking about members of the public who wish to enjoy the use of allotment space and cultivate vegetables, fruit, herbs or flowers. If it happens to be the case that they have excess product and wish to sell it, who are we to forbid it and how in any case can we define profit in this instance? Indeed, allotment users can take a certain pride in selling the produce that they have worked hard to cultivate. Any profits in inverted commerce gained from these sort of sales are not intended for a company's balance sheet but would rather be a small reward for hours of work put in this resulted in surplus produce. Furthermore, a provision that allows a sale of surplus produce other than the view to making a profit I think brings a question of definition as well as enforceability. How are the police meant to check whether the proceeds of each allotment sale are not for profit? I should also say that amendment 202 is included to clarify that allotment land would not be considered agricultural solely because someone makes a profit from selling surplus produce in order to alleviate potential concerns in this area. Thank you, Ken Macintosh. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was just to suggest to Cameron Buchanan that perhaps he might have misunderstood what was discussed and agreed in committee on this stage. Bill, as amended, currently stands, disqualifies commercial exploitation of allotments but it does not disallow people from small-scale remuneration of if they have an extra bag of potatoes or if they want to cover the costs of their heating. I think that his amendments are entirely unnecessary and miss the point of what has been agreed already in committee. Amendment 202, 203, 213 lodged by Mr Buchanan would result in surplus produce produced on allotments being able to be sold for profit. Additionally, it would remove the ability of local authorities to include provision prohibiting the sale of surplus produce in regulations about allotments. That could prevent local authorities from taking account of local factors in determining how surplus produce on allotments in its area might be sold. The Scottish Allotments and Garden Society have argued very strongly that the purpose of allotment is to support self-sufficiency in good food rather than be a means to provide additional income to allotment tenants. They consider that any proceeds from the sale of produce should only go back to the allotment association to be reinvested in that community of allotment holders. I recognise Mr Buchanan's desire to include allotment production as part of the wider food economy. However, this goes against the whole ethos of allotments to ensure that a family is self-sufficient in good food. As such, I would ask Mr Buchanan to withdraw amendment 200 and not move the other amendments in this group. Many thanks. I now invite Cameron Buchanan to wind up and to please indicate if you intend to press or withdraw. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I intend to press because I actually do think that there's got to be a definition of profit. It's not really commercial profit, as I was talking about. I'm talking about if somebody wants to sell goods and I think they'll be prevented from selling goods outside the allotment area or at a car boot sale or something else, and that should be, I think, not restricted. I think also we didn't clarify whether amendment 202 is included that allotment land would not be considered for agricultural use solely because someone makes a profit from selling surplus produce. I would like to press my amendment. Many thanks. In which case the question is that amendment 200 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 200 is yes, 16. No, 103. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 102 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 101. I ask the minister to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 102 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 202 in the name of Cameron Buchanan. Already debated with amendment 200. I ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not move. Thank you. The question then is that amendment 202 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. It will be 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 202 is yes, 15. No, 103. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 103 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 101. I ask the minister to move formally. Question then is that amendment 103 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 24, minor amendments, allotments. I call amendment 104 in the name of the minister for environment, climate change and land reform, and a group with the other amendments shown in the groupings. I ask the minister to move amendment 104 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. This is a group of minor amendments. Amendment 104 provides that a person may also make a request to sub-lease an allotment from a tenant of the authority in circumstances where the authority has leased the allotment site. Amendments 106, 126, 129 and 130 are intended to ensure the consultation requirements in relation to local authorities in part 7 of the bill are consistent with those applying elsewhere in the bill. Amendment 108 adjusts the drafting and in particular includes the words continuous period into the provision. That confirms the intention that a local authority is required to take reasonable steps to ensure that a person on the waiting list does not remain on the list for a continuous period of more than five years rather than the cumulative period of five years where the individual may come off and then go back on the waiting list for various reasons. We have also worked closely with the Scottish Gardens and Allotment Society local authorities and COSLA in reviewing this provision, and it has been collectively agreed that this particular provision will be commenced so that it takes effect three years after the rest of part 7 of the bill to allow local authorities greater time to prepare for this provision. Amendment 109 replaces subsection 3A, which currently requires local authorities when taking reasonable steps to provide allotments to have regard to the need to make those available reasonably close to the residents of persons on the waiting list. The requirement was introduced by Alex Rowley's amendment at stage 2. The amendment adjusts the drafting and in particular replaces the reference to need with desirability. That ensures that the spirit of the provision is maintained, although the amendment provides local authorities with some flexibility in meeting the requirement. Amendment 110 will provide that if a local authority asks its tenant of allotment site to grant a sublease of an unoccupied allotment on the allotment site to a person who has requested an allotment, the tenant must grant that sublease. Amendment 113 and 114, subsection 3A of section 77, was added to the bill at stage 2. It requires a local authority when detailing how it intends to increase the provision of allotment sites and community growing areas of land in its area to describe whether and how that will apply to communities that experience socioeconomic disadvantage. Those amendments are minor and technical, and they are intended to ensure that the provision achieves the intended effect. Amendment 115, following our commitment at stage 2, to consider requiring local authorities to publish a statement about fair rent in relation to allotments, amendment 115 will require local authorities to include in their annual allotments report details of the rent payable in respect of allotments in their area and details of how those rents are determined by reference to the requirement for local authority regulations to include a method of determining fair rent. Amendments 116 and 117, section 821, permits a local authority to incur expenditure for the purpose of promoting allotments in its area and providing training by or on behalf of the local authority to tenants and potential tenants about the use of allotments. Subsection 2 was added to the bill at stage 2, and it requires local authorities to take into account the desirability of exercising this power in relation to communities that experience socioeconomic disadvantage. Amendments 116 and 117 are technical to subsection 2 to ensure that the provision achieves its intended effect. Amendment 118, section 82A, allows requests to be made to local authority to use certain premises for meetings of allotments tenants and to do so without charge. It was mentioned during the stage 2 debate that in some areas the use of school buildings and the operation of other community buildings has been transferred to arms length external organisations or other bodies. We have looked into that situation and this amendment, amendment 118, expands the provision to include not only premises maintained directly by the local authority but also premises maintained and used in connection with services delegated by the local authority or maintained. His use is managed by another person in accordance with arrangements between that person and the local authority. I am confident that those descriptions cover the types of arrangements in place for schools and community buildings and will ensure that allotment associations can find suitable places to meet. Amendments 119, 120, 121 and 123 make minor amendments of section 84. Amendment 124 makes it clear that, where a local authority grants the lease of an allotment site and the tenant of an allotment supplicies and allotment from the local authority's tenants such as an allotment association, the tenant of the allotment must not assign the lease of the allotment unless the local authority that granted the lease of the allotment site agrees to the asset nation. Amendment 125 is a minor drafting amendment of section 89. Amendments 127 and 128 make minor amendments of section 90, which makes provision on compensation for deterioration in allotments caused by tenants. Amendment 132 is a minor drafting change to achieve greater consistency with the language of the Equality Act 2010. Lastly, amendments 134 and 145 are consequential amendments to ensure consistency between the provisions of the Local Government Scotland Act 1973 and the provisions of the bill. Could the minister confirm that, regarding amendments 106, 126, 129 and 130, that the intention remains that the Scottish ministers allow each willing local authority to contribute to the relevant consultation? Thank you. Since no one else is requested to speak, I will ask the minister to wind up, please. Amendment 106, 126, 129 and 130 are minor amendments that ensure that the consultation requirements in relation to local authorities in part 7 in the bill are consistent with those applying elsewhere in the bill. Amendment 106 relates to the consultation before making regulations about information that must be included in a request to lease an allotment. Amendment 126 relates to the consultation requirements before making regulations on compensation for disturbance. Amendment 129 relates to the consultation requirements before making regulations on compensation for deterioration of allotments. Amendment 130 relates consultation before making regulations in connection with the compensation payable to a tenant who suffers loss of any crop as a result of an allotment being resumed. My question was, will each local authority, because it does not specify how many local authorities have to be consulted, so does that mean that every local authority has to be consulted before the decision can be made? Each local authority will be consulted. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendments 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110, all in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 105 to 110 on block, please. Move them block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 105 to 110? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 105 to 110 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? I now call amendment 203, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 200. I ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not move. In which case, I call amendments 111 through to 124, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 111 to 124 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? Members do object. In which case, I will put the question on each amendment individually. Order, please. So, the question is that amendment 100 and 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 111 is yes, 104, no, 15. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Question now is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. This will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 112 is yes, 103, no, 15. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. In an effort to be helpful, we would be very happy if you had some process whereby you could move on block the rest of the amendments in this section. Thank you very much. In which case, the question is that amendments 113 to 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, thank you. I now call amendment 213, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 200, and to ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not move. In which case, the question is that amendment 213 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. Order, please. The result of the vote on amendment number 213 is yes, 15, no, 103, abstentions, 0. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendments 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130, all in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 125 to 130 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? No member has objected. The question therefore is that amendments 125 to 130 are agreed. Are we agreed? We are. That brings us to group 25 guidance, and I call amendment 131, in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, group with amendment 22, and I ask the minister to move amendment 131 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Amendment 131, if agreed, will insert a new section into part 7 of the bill. First, this section will require local authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the Scottish ministers about the carrying out of functions by local authorities under part 7 of the bill. Secondly, this section will require the Scottish ministers before issuing the guidance to consult local authorities and any other persons appearing to them to have an interest. Those measures will help ensure continued good partnership working on allotments between ministers, local authorities and stakeholders. The guidance will aid the implementation of those sections of part 7 that may be technical in nature and something that we know will be welcomed by the Scottish allotments and garden society, as well as local authorities. Section 95 of the bill currently requires the Scottish ministers must publish any guidance issued by them in relation to part 2 or part 6 of the bill. Requirements for public authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish ministers were added to part 3, 5 and 7A of the bill at stage 2. In addition, amendment 131, if agreed, will require local authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish ministers about their functions under part 7 of the bill. Amendment 22, if agreed, will provide that the Scottish ministers must also publish any guidance that is relating to part 3, 5, 7 and 7A of the bill. I thank the minister. No other member has indicated the wish to speak. Do you wish to wind up? In which case the question is, that amendment 131 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 132, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 104. I ask the minister to move formally, please. The question is, that amendment 132 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 26, schemes for reduction and remission of rates. I call amendment 21, in the name of the minister, for local government and community empowerment, in a group on its own. I ask the minister to move and speak to the amendments, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The bill provides for a new power to allow councils to offer additional rates relief within their area. This amendment would clarify, wording agreed, following a stage 2 amendment by a member who shall remain nameless, replacing a potentially dubious comma after expenditure with and so that it is clear beyond doubt that the income referred to is the authorities income. I move amendment 21. Thank you. Since I have no indication that any other member wishes to speak, do I presume that you do not wish to wind up, minister? Thank you. The question then is, that amendment 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 22, 215 and 133, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister for local government and community empowerment to move amendments 22, 215 and 133 on block, please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 22, 215 and 133? No member objects. Therefore, the question is, that amendments 22, 215 and 133 are agreed, are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 27, minor amendments, community planning, asset transfer requests and a long title. I call amendment 23 in the name of the minister for local government and community empowerment. Group with amendments 24, 25 and 26. I ask the minister to move amendment 23 and speak to all of the other amendments in the group, please. Thank you. The Scottish courts service will be a relevant authority under the bill. The service changed its name to become the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service. Amendment 23 reflects that change. Amendment 24 makes two consequential changes on community planning. The First Amendment deals with consultation by an education authority before making certain changes to education provision in their area and requires them to include the local CPP and any other that they consider relevant. The second relates to joint inspection of children's services. They are currently defined with reference to the local government in Scotland Act 2003. In future, they will be defined with reference to the children and young people Scotland Act 2014. Amendments 25 and 26 alter the long title of the bill to include reference to provisions that were added at stage 2. I move amendment 23. Many thanks. Once again, no one else wishes to contribute. Do I presume minister that you do not wish to wind up? The question then is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendments 134 through to 144, 24, 145, 146, 25, 217 and 26, all in the name of ministers and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister for environment, climate change and land reform to move amendments 134 to 144, 24, 145, 146, 25, 217 and 26 on block? Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? Since no member has objected, the question then is that amendments 134 to 144, 24, 145, 146, 25, 217 and 26 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are and that ends consideration of amendments. I will allow members to move places, please. Can members leaving the chamber do so quietly because we are still in session? Order, please. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 13523 in the name of Marco Biazio on the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill. Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary to signify crown consent to the bill. For the purposes of rule 911 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prorogative and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. Many thanks and we can now begin the debate. I invite members who wish to speak in a debate, press the request to speak buttons, please. I call on Marco Biazio to speak to it and to move the motion minister 10 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do not think that I have emptied a room this fast since I got up to do karaoke at party conference, but thank you to everyone who has contributed, thank you to everybody who is still here. The members of all parties, the huge number of people that have really contributed throughout the last three years to making this bill what it is today, has been a collective effort between Government, Parliament and the grassroots, as befits a bill that is all about community empowerment. The bill is much better for their participation, their challenge and their input. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank Rob Gibson and the members of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for their incredibly detailed scrutiny of community right to buy. Kevin Stewart and the members of the local government and regeneration committee for their thorough scrutiny of the bill during stages 1 and 2, including some interesting sessions that I was present at enjoying the hospitality and the debate. Both committees have to be applauded for taking evidence, as they did, from such a wide range of organisations and individuals in this process. That really careful, balanced consideration of the proposals led to an improved piece of legislation that will make a significant difference to communities across Scotland for years to come. At stage 2, I took amendments from all sides, which just again shows that when there are good ideas put forward to this Government, we will listen to them wherever they come from. That has continued today in discussions that have often been more about detail than about fundamental disagreements on principle. On that, from the national outcomes to participation requests from football to allotments, I am pleased that we have that shared vision, that desire for more empowerment, more participation for communities of all types across Scotland. The focus has been to make sure that we have legislation that will lift up, that will free the voices of people across Scotland who want to take part, to let them set local agendas in line with their own wishes and concerns. If I were to sum up the headings of the bill, there would be a series of them. The first would be participation. In the bill, participation requests provide a mechanism for communities to gain a proactive role in how local services are planned and delivered to take part. Community bodies could use the bill to discuss with service providers how they could better meet the needs of their users, to offer volunteers to support a service or even propose to take over the delivery of the service themselves. I think that that will be a really powerful tool for communities to take action on their terms. I want it to spread and take root as a go-to point for those communities who wish to realise their ambitions. It highlights where improvements can be made, where people come forward with solutions as to how they can be taken forward and can deliver together. I thank the minister for allowing that to happen for one particular community in my constituency, the community of South Col, and the amendments to the bill, which the minister was very helpful in ensuring were drafted and then were accepted by the committee that has been accepted today. That will give new hope to a community that desperately wants to purchase Castle Towered is being prevented by a recalcitrant and backward-looking local authority. The bill gives real hope today, and the community of South Col is grateful to him and to this Parliament if it passes the bill at 8 o'clock tonight. I think that the member will be very glad to have put that on the record, and I am happy to put on the record my support for communities that wish to take up all of the opportunities of the bill to participate. One of the changes that was developed at stage 2 was to help with our move towards participation and empowerment. We put a new power in the bill that would require public bodies to promote and facilitate the participation of people in communities in decisions and activities of all public bodies. That is a challenge. It is worth accepting, but we know that there are people already out there pioneering techniques such as participatory budgeting, which Malcolm Chisholm will know very well from his constituency and the Leith decides initiative, and I give way to him. It is just the point that I raised in debate about allios. I believe that they are not mentioned in the bill, but can the minister confirm that they will definitely be included in regulations? I noticed the omission and I was going to come back to it in closing. I am happy to answer that point right now. Allios are not listed in schedule 3 and are not public authorities, but there is the ability for Scottish Governments to, by order, designate additional organisations under certain circumstances, provided they meet certain qualifications. Obviously, there is a blurred boundary between what is a public body and what is an entirely private body, and we have to be aware of competence here. However, there is that provision, and we would be seeking to ensure, as we already did on allotments following a particular concern, that allios were within the spirit of the bill as bodies that are delivering on behalf of the public sector. Alex Salmond? The community right to buy has been an evolving process over the past few years. The bill takes it much further than we have had before, but there will be nothing to stop in the future at evolving further. For example, it could be in the future that a community of anglers might have the right to buy out the netting rights in one of Scotland's great fishing rivers. That would be the sort of thing that would be given active consideration as this process moves forward. Yes, it takes me back to the discussion that I had in previous amendments with Alex Ferguson about communities of interest when we are in this bill allowing the transfer of public assets. We have very consciously identified communities of interest as groups that could take on ownership of assets themselves, people who share an interest or a background or an activity, because there are many kinds of communities. There are not simply localities, which are important communities. There are also people who share characteristics and wish to work together or activities and wish to work together on them. That ownership, when you are not simply a group of people sharing either a locality or an idea, when you can bring that together with the ownership of an asset, it results, I believe—I strongly argue—in more confidence, capacity and cohesion. It gives a flag to rally around and a sense of ownership, because it is based on what is essentially, in many cases, actual ownership. Whether it is reviving a local shop, renovating derelict sites, providing a hub for community activities, control of assets can be a key factor in making a community a more attractive place to live and supporting its economic regeneration. My colleague, Dr McLeod, has—I would contest—deftly steered community right to buy through this Parliament. I am not just saying that because she is sitting next to me. We have a comprehensive set of improvements but also a fundamental shift in the way community right to buy can be used by communities. It is now available in urban and rural contexts, and the new part 3A will be instrumental in helping communities to deal with problem land. At the same time, no single bill or action that any Government takes will change this pattern overnight. As the land reform review group report emphasised, land reform is a long-term process, but we firmly believe that those measures help to lay the foundation for future action on land reform and our vital next steps. If participation in assets are two key parts of the bill, another theme, another strand is inequalities, recognising how inequalities can impact on the ability of communities to use the bill. It has been a focus of concern for the committee, and we have been working together on this to ensure that we empower the disempowered. We have brought forward amendments. We are requiring public bodies to consider inequality and we are targeting locality planning, so that all community planning partners can bring their resources to bear on those neighbourhoods that have the most disadvantage. We are also, let's be honest, let's be proud to put a significant amount of investment through this programme directly into communities. We are putting an extra £5.6 million in the people and communities fund, and that will be part of the overall empowering communities pot, which now stands at £19.4 million of support. We have listened to everything that has been said and the collaborative approach really has allowed the bill to evolve into an extraordinary piece of legislation that touches on practically all aspects of human activity, but it also makes sure that our public services are focused on improving what our communities care about and putting them in the driving seat. The broad consensus in favour reflects our commitment, the shared commitment, to working with everyone, and following its enactment we will continue that dialogue as we develop draft guidance and proceed with implementation. Again, I would like to thank all those who contributed, who will continue to contribute, and it gives me enormous pleasure to move the motion. I move that the Parliament agrees that the community empowerment Scotland bill be passed. I thank all those who have given incredible amount of time, energy and support to enable us to scrutinise the legislation and to significantly improve on the bill that was initially presented to us. I thank the parliamentary staff for supporting both committees. I thank all our witnesses, all the community and interest groups who gave evidence and spoke to us during the process. I also want to specifically mention the work that the land reform group has done, which I think has been useful in setting a backdrop to the bill. I thank the environment minister for her willingness to work with the members of the rural committee to help to improve the bill. I have to say that I get the sense of the chamber that the minister has also made his contribution on the local government side, so I think that that is definitely something to be welcomed. As Scottish Labour, we strongly support the principle that communities be given more opportunities to work together to improve people's lives. We agree with the point made by SCVO that the connection needs to be made with the legislation that we are passing today and the Scottish Government's social justice strategy. It is a fundamental opportunity to seize the chance to make sure that we tackle inequalities and that we look at our land and our buildings, so we strongly support the ambitions behind the community empowerment bill. We see it as unfinished business from the land reform legislation that we passed in 2003. That act has enabled rural residents to be in more control of their destiny, to make better use of the natural resources in their communities, and it has been transformative legislation. A key part of that success has been the existence of dedicated finance to enable community transfers to take place, but one of the challenges—we have come back to it and that is why our committee went into such detail on the face of the bill—is for communities to work their way through complex legislation. The need to avoid complexity is an issue raised by the law society, and the wording of the regulations and the guidance that it follows is absolutely crucial in enabling communities to use the legislation that we passed today, so that it becomes an opportunity, not an obstacle to buying land. Support from the Scottish Government in terms of advice and finance will be critical if communities are able to make the best use of the legislation, so we need to see the detailed implementation and the regulations being put in place as swiftly as possible. I particularly want to welcome today the extension of the option of the right to buy to urban communities. There will be challenges, and I particularly want to thank the community members and councillors in the Calton and Glasgow for their ideas on how we make the bill as effective as it can be. I am also conscious of the needs and aspirations of communities in Edinburgh and the Lothians. As the law society pointed out, we need to ensure that the potential higher cost of land does not frustrate the ambitions of the bill, so there are lots of implementation issues for us to think about. One of the key issues that we discussed throughout the consideration of the bill has been the need for clarity surrounding the provisions on neglected and abandoned criteria. The debate that we had in stage 2 was important to understand how the Scottish Government will approach the detail. Today, we have also been debating amendments on sustainable development and to add in the environmental wellbeing criteria. I very much want to welcome the clarification from the minister today about how she sees the legislation being implemented. What is said on the record today and the overwhelming support that there has been for the new key principles will be looked at in the future. They will be important for future decisions by ministers and by courts, hopefully more by ministers and less by courts. However, they will be important, so I was very keen that we teased those out today. In my own area in the Lothians, I know of a cinema that has been empty for a decade. Marco Biazio will know the place where I am talking about the audience cinema. It is a classic example of a building that has become an eyesore in a shopping parade, that has huge potential and that, over the years, will have been deteriorating. It was really good to hear from the minister today the idea of buildings in a shopping parade, that the social wellbeing of a community is part of the environmental wellbeing. I very much welcome that commitment that we have had this afternoon. I hope that, up and down the country, communities and owners will be thinking about this in more depth. I hope that it will concentrate minds that we need to have buildings and land used to the best benefit of the community as a whole. There are new options provided today that will come from the passage of this bill. That is something that we should all celebrate. That is partly why people are working to work together. I welcome the fact that there has been a collegiate approach in the committees and ministers today. I hope that a more constructive and positive set of relationships between landowners and communities will flow from the legislation. The very existence of the legislation will be good across the country. It will raise people's aspirations and that is a good thing. I particularly want to welcome the fact that there has been the possibility for mediation initiated by the ministers between communities and landowners when it is appropriate. Rather than ranks of lawyers sitting in a room debating the fine detail, let us get the people to come up with good solutions that will benefit local communities and those who are the stewards of our land and buildings. I started my comments by welcoming the fact that this was unfinished business from the 2003 act. Today, in itself, leaves new unfinished business. Important issues were raised by the land reform group, compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sale orders that will now be looked at by the Scottish Law Commission. There is more work that will need to be done. Crucially, we need to build capacity and support in our communities to ensure that we deliver the social justice and the regeneration of communities that is at the heart of the legislation. This is important work that we have been doing over the past few months. Today has been good. The new provisions and allotments supported by the expert lobbying of the Scottish Association for Allotments and Gardens. They do not miss the target when they get going. The opportunities for sustainable development, for community growing and for community health and wellbeing that comes from gardening and allotments are something that is really important and we need to capture that. The opportunities to come on the right to buy for football, that again is a new opportunity that we will be able to come back to. Empowerment, opening up new opportunities for our communities, particularly for those communities that are currently disadvantaged, there are new opportunities that come today and we need, as MSPs, to make sure that our local communities will benefit from those changes. Let us pass this bill today, let us move forward together and then let us look forward to the next bit of land reform that, as I understand, will be coming at us at a rate of knots. Today, I think that this bill is better than it was when it was introduced. It is stronger for the debate and the discussion, communities and organisations have helped us to get this bill together and I hope that it will be passed at stage 3 tonight. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I call on Cameron McCam to speak for five minutes or thereby, I want to make the chamber aware that the Presiding Officer has determined that decision time will take place at 8.15 tonight. That will allow every member who wishes to speak in the debate the opportunity to do so. Mr McCam, on five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This Parliament's consideration of the community empowerment bill has been a long and very detailed process with many important points raised. I too would like to thank the clerks and everybody else who has been involved with it and the two committees. I have always agreed with the principle of enabling communities to have a greater say in local matters and welcome provisions to facilitate it. However, I am concerned that there are a number of areas where the bill may allow central decisions still to take precedence over the local priorities. These worries cannot be passed over. Members will be more than aware that there have been many amendments, many amendments tabled today, and although I will not have time to analyse each of them, I do think it is worth touching on some of the most prescient points raised. My central aim or our central aim has always been to ensure that the bill will genuinely delegate decision making so that members of the public can benefit from local flexibility and autonomy, and not subject to the whims of the Scottish Government. The extent to which this aim is realised does come down to two factors. The first is the breadth and strength of directions imposed on communities and local authorities from the central government. The second is the extent to which procedures contain the necessary safeguards to ensure that any community wishing to become involved in local decision making has a reasonable chance of so doing. As a case in point, the interreaction between parts 1 of the bill relating to national outcomes and part 2 relating to community planning does raise concerns that local priorities may be overshadowed by national decisions. This is particularly true since each community planning partnership must have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish ministers. I agree with efforts to encourage community participation in the development of local authority improvement plans, but I still think that this Parliament and public officials across Scotland would do well to ensure that local priorities are the driving force. On a similar note, I wish to focus on the bill's provisions of the allotments regarding the allotments because they have raised concerns about local autonomy. In particular, the provisions that require the Scottish Government's consent for a local authority to change the use of an allotment site could, if used in a certain way, obstruct local decision making for national reasons. That is, I think, plainly contrary to the principle of facilitating local empowerment. If power is truly to be devolved from the centre, local authorities should be able to decide for themselves whether changing the use of an allotment site is in the local interest. Subject, of course—certainly. John Wilson. I will clarify in relation to the local authority decision making regarding closing an allotment site and the community. The allotment holders' input into whether or not a local authority makes that decision, because I think that part of the legislation is to give more power to communities, and surely that power should be to allotment holders to influence the council's decisions not necessarily just to council-making decisions that I win. Thank you for your intervention. I do not think that it is clear in the bill that this is the case. That is my concern, really. I do not think that it is actually clear. It has not been specified. I think that, also, the use of allotment—sorry, this is, I think, plainly—sorry, I have lost the way—to obstruct local decision making is for national reasons. This is plainly contrary to the principle of facilitating local empowerment, which I think is the point. If power is truly to be devolved from the centre, local authorities should be able to decide for themselves whether changing the use of an allotment site is in the local interest. Subject, of course, to reasonable protections. Unfortunately, I think that amendments passed this evening have restricted local authorities' freedom to decide which allotments are offered to tenants, but I would be grateful for the minister's assurance that local agreements are intended to take precedence. Having said this, I do welcome the change in the bill's provisions regarding the size of allotments. Those changes keep a reference in writing to a standard 250 square metre size, as many allotment holders desire, but also recognise the need for local flexibility. They therefore recognise that allotment holders' rights but also allow for flexibility when local authorities and allotment holders can agree, which is the kind of move away from central direction towards local decision making that this bill would do well to have more of. Of course, the central part of this debate is ensuring that the bill does what it says. It empowers local communities to take part in decision making. We do agree with the principle that community bodies should be able to request to participate in local outcome improvement programmes to make asset transfer requests, but that must be reinforced by proper protections. I would like to stress that I am not making any assumptions, but it is important that communities are protected through a right to review or appeal from being shut out of local decision making for inappropriate reasons. I note that the Scottish Government responded to my points about allowing a review or appeal when an asset transfer request is agreed, but contract negotiations are broken down by setting up an appeal process where no contract is included between a relevant authority and a community transfer body. That is welcome change in favour of community bodies' involvement. The Scottish Government would have done well to replicate throughout the bill. What I can say now is that I expect the Scottish Government to share my commitment to monitor annual reports in the interests of ensuring that applications are treated appropriately. I hope that the minister across the chamber will join us in committing to uphold the principles of community empowerment. We now move to open debate. I call on Clare Adamson to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Four-minute speeches, please, or thereby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been a very interesting afternoon. Lots of topics have been raised regarding the community empowerment bill, but I absolutely believe that it is about community and the communities in which we live. I had a very poignant experience before coming to the chamber this afternoon because I attended the unveiling of the Scottish Steelworkers Memorial on the Ravens Craig site in North Lanarkshire. I was struck that it was a community project. It was something that brought together the communities of North Lanarkshire, both from the heritage side and the industrial heritage of our communities, but it also brought together local schools and the local council, which also supported the fundraising for the Steelworkers Memorial. It was very poignant because of where that memorial sits in our community, which is on the previous Ravens Craig site in North Lanarkshire. When I was a school child there, I would never have imagined that an anti-Scots sculpture, which will form part of our heritage in the future, would be on that site. Indeed, I do not think that anti-Scots would have envisaged any of its sculptures at that time. However, to have that there on the site of what was the steelworks beside the regional sports centre in the heart of what will be a changing and developing community, it brought home to me just how important it was to bring all our communities together in looking forward to the future. It brought together some of the themes that have come out this afternoon about everything changes, nothing stays static, and that this is a framework that should take us forward in the future for as-yet-and-as-visaged community empowerment projects that may come our way. I was glad that the minister paid tribute to the work of the committees. I only joined the local government committee in November and I have to admit that the bulk of the work had already been done by that point and a lot of the evidence that was there. Yes, certainly, minister. I just want to be able to know how she feels. I say to the minister the wide-ranging debate this afternoon. We have had the minutiae of allotment sizes to a philosophical conundrum from colleague Rob Gibson when he asked the question of what is a definition of an environment. We have to look to the big scale and the blue-sky thinking in that, as well as to the individual minutiae of the whole process. However, I think that this is a bill that will empower communities through the ownership of land and buildings. It will strengthen our voices and the decisions that matter to our communities and put them at the heart of this process. I think that the extension of the community right to buy across Scotland will help to deliver the Government's ambitious target of 1 million acres of land in community ownership by 2020. I think that the bill will improve the outcomes for communities by involving communities in the process of community planning and strengthening partnership workings in our local authorities and in our community environments. I am very glad that the Scottish Government has supported this process with an additional £10 million that will be provided through the new empowering communities fund to make sure that people can be more involved in the decisions that affect their lives. I think that there is much to be commended—a lot of it has already been debated this afternoon—but I do think that the ownership of land and buildings and strengthening voices in the decisions that matter to the communities is at the heart of what we are doing this afternoon. Presiding officer, it will be a long afternoon and I am going to leave it there. I hope that I look forward to passing the bill passage later this afternoon. No call on Claudia Beamish to be followed by Rob Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Land reform is, of course, a continuum and Scottish Labour has contributed robustly to the process and will continue to do so today and beyond. The community empowerment bill, which together we hope will pass, is an essential part of this process. At stage 1, I spoke of the keen interest in community ownership from a South Scotland perspective. Communities are in need of and have a right to the levels of support that have been on offer over the years in highlands and islands. Scottish Enterprise should be tasked, in our view, with a new remit and the focus of the proposed bodies in relation to the wider land reform issues must offer even support throughout Scotland. I seek reassurance from the minister on this issue in his closing remarks. The human rights aspect of the bill and the amendment are significant. In stage 3 briefing, Community Land Scotland states that ministers will need to have regard to the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights when making certain decisions about community ownership. As a member of the Scottish co-op party parliamentary group, I was delighted to find that the Scottish Government has taken forward the possibilities for the Bencom model, a co-operative model. What is the minister able to do through co-operative development Scotland to support this option? It should be recognised that urban and rural regeneration are not all about ownership itself, however. They can be about good partnership with private land owners and the range of public bodies. I am relieved that the central thrust of the changes needed for allotment holding have been accepted today. The frustration experienced by many who want to grow food themselves yet do not have access to any land has built up over far too long. Constituents who have approached me after years on council waiting lists seeing unused patches of land going literally to waste will have a sense of comfort and draw some optimism from today. This will also create, I believe, an opportunity for young people who have been involved in growing food through eco schools. I am sure that the allotment societies across Scotland will see the passing of this bill as a fresh opportunity to connect with young people and provide the chance for them to get growing through starter spaces, and some of us saw these in elite allotments. I wish all allotment holders and those with aspirations well. Yesterday, I attended a strategic discussion about the development of a community responsibility for the Carlook High Mill in my region of South Scotland. After what have been complex discussions with the land over owner, the steering group, which includes Carlook Development Trust along with other groups, and I quote, will secure the long-term future of the high mill by returning it to a working state with the aim that it will become a key centre of cultural, economic and educational activity whilst ensuring that it is supported by a sustainable enterprise business model. This creates opportunities for allotments, local food production and a community cafe around the mill hub. Again, this is about lease and not ownership. However, opportunities for ownership are fundamental to the way forward in Scotland. The Rural Affairs and Climate Change and Environment Committee in Orkney session did, I believe, dispel with the help of Dave Thompson and Sarah Boyack and others, the myths about the development of land reform. Good landowners have nothing to fear as they develop alongside communities. However, the distribution of land ownership in Scotland is not just and can indisputably hamper the community opportunity for job creation, good housing and community vision more broadly. The passing of the community empowerment bill today will go some way to correcting some of these distortions, and Scottish Labour also eagerly awaits the publication of the land reform bill next week and will be making a strong contribution to its progress. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to reach this stage in the bill because we have covered a huge amount of ground, both in Kevin Stewart's committee and in my own. In our own case, we were brought into the process somewhat later on to deal with part 4. It's basically the land reform part of those things that we dealt with, but I'd like to comment on one or two other things as well. It's really important that, when people saw this, they thought that there might be some great difficulties put in the way of simplifying things like the crofting community right to buy. However, we found in fact that, by adding those things at stage 2, it was possible to have that debate, to take the evidence and indeed to reach a consensus about simplifying those processes, which make it much easier for crofting communities and so on. The simplification of registration processes by communities, crofting or otherwise, is one of the things that I'm most proud of because it's a daunting process for people who are perhaps suddenly have thrust on them within a few weeks, the necessity to create a business plan and, indeed, to register the right to buy. That registration process and, indeed, re-registration within five years is something that has been simplified considerably. Extending the right to buy across Scotland has been one of the major aims just now. We should recognise of course that there will be many problems that this throws up. We should never underestimate the obstacles to achieving a step change in development in so many varied communities across Scotland, but I think that we've laid the groundwork to be able to do that. I'm also delighted that we've been able to extend the forms of community bodies to skeos and bencoms, as has been said earlier. I think that that's very important because it allows people to pick a form that's suitable to their area. In listening to discussions about community planning partnerships and much more local plans, I like the idea about locality plans, which were dealt with by the other committee. I think that small parts of community council areas can focus on that. I can think of one at Calrhaen at the moment in my constituency that we'd love to have been able to do that at an earlier stage because it prepares people for when they're actually going to take action because they've thought about it beforehand and about the resources that they might need. As far as local authorities are concerned, they can be quite a constraint on the transfer of land to communities. Our committee took some time in looking at that aspect because we found around the country very varied views in local authorities about how much they were prepared to do that. Local authorities through John Mundell, chief executive of Inver Clyde Council, said that, if we are disposing of assets, we are always required to obtain best value. That normally means market value, whether we use the district value or another mechanism to value the asset. We want to change what best value means in terms of communities because it cannot be the market value. It must be at some level other than that. That's one of the pieces of work that we've got to take on from this, but it's opened the door to being able to do that. Above all, I think that, for my point of view, the thing that is most cheering about this whole process has been the development of the arguments about human rights and, in particular, the embrace that the Government has taken to the UN covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which guarantees certain rights such as sanitation, food and housing. How to apply that in our circumstances could aid many communities in our urban areas, as well as those abroad, because the UK signed up to that in 1976, and it's something that is generally accepted as being a gold standard. ECHR, we found so often, was related to property, but this is related to people. I've got great pleasure in supporting the way in which the legislation has been taken forward, and I hope that we can get the secondary legislation passed as a priority. I start with Rob Gibson's very fair point about best value, because the usual charge made of any legislation is does it actually make a difference and can it be seen to do so? In describing the use of a redundant school in Shetland, which has not been used for school for a long, long time, the council in my area sold it to the largest developer, to the developer who paid the highest fee. Instead of a voluntary group who were going to use one of the school buildings, which was a canteen for a particular use, I won't bore the chamber with what it was all about, but if this legislation can enable that community group to buy that asset and to use it for the activities that they so wish, then it will have done something purposeful and it will be well worth passing. I can't improve nor am I going to attempt to go through the legislation in a way in which the minister did in his opening remarks when I agreed very much with a tenor of his observations. I think he described that the legislation is extraordinary. The one parliamentary observation I might make is when we pass pretty enormously wide legislation, catch-all legislation, we, I suppose, have to consider that we used to criticise Westminster Governments of all persuasions for passing the annual Miscellaneous Scotland Bill. This does strike me not as a miscellaneous bill, but very much as a detailed, complex and, but nevertheless, wide bill. I'm sure that the Government don't want to reflect on the process that allowed it to be that. I have to say that my highlight of the day was the allotments debate. It's just as well around McNeill is still not the parliamentary sketchwriter for the Scotsman, Alec Ferguson and Sarah Boyack. We'll remember those Halcyon days when Rab used to look down from the benches up the road when we were up the road. I don't think Kamyn Euda survived his sketch tomorrow morning. Sadly, for the Minister, the bill would no longer have been the community parliament bill but would have been the allotment bill or the swede bill or something like that. Nevertheless, the Minister has made, the Minister's plural, I should say, has made a lot of progress. In my day it was one Minister who dealt with a bill like this. I thought one of the ironies of today was getting a briefing last night for Peter Peacock, who used to grace the front bench in Governments of Past. Peter used to handle those kinds of bills, the whole of them. All goodness knows how many sections and clauses and what have you, and he used to provide briefings to the rest of us who were subsequently taking bills through Parliament. He did it because he had a huge attention for detail and could hold the chamber and hold parties across the chamber just because he had that. If Mark O'Bashley follows that kind of approach, I think that he'll do very well as a Minister, because the effectiveness of someone like Peter Peacock was his ability to produce detailed legislation and make it understandable to all of us. His briefing, I thought, was a master of its kind. It's usual Peter Peacock piece, which said, commends the support of all parties for the Governments' amendments for stage 3, subject to the following comments, and there are two pages of comments. That was very, very Peter Peacock, I thought. I'll just make two final points to the Government on this. The first is just the—I want to recognise that the Minister and the Minister's plural did take amendments from all sides of Parliament in considering how best to improve this legislation. Hitherto, I actually thought the best example of that going back through Parliament was the first cut at land reform, which again some, dare I say, older colleagues will recall, because that bill was very, very different from the original legislation that was proposed to Parliament. Again, it was because of the point that the Minister rightly made from the front bench, which is that so many groups and interested parties made observations to say, like, that isn't good enough or that needs to be altered. And I thought that's come through in the way in which the Ministers have reflected on the observations they've made, and to some extent that was also the case with the FAMs amendments that Alison Johnson persuasively made for both in committee and this afternoon. And the final point I thought was the one that Alex Ferguson made about the clarity of the bill. I necessarily agree with the arguments on the particular clauses that he was pursuing, but when Michael Russell is no longer with us, but I think Rob Gibson made the same point, when colleagues from even from the Government benches are saying some of this may end up getting tested in court, then we've got to be careful we've got it right, because that is not a good sign for any legislation. I appreciate it's a very small part of the bill, and I'm sure the Minister will reflect on that, no doubt, with his good legal counsel as well and the Lord Advocate and all. But I think it is important that we seek to avoid situations in which we have recourse to say, good gosh, we're just going to end up testing this in the court. I'm sure that's not the Minister's intention, I'm sure that he'll do his best to avoid that, but that must be a lesson in any way that we draft these kinds of pieces of law. Thank you so much. I now call on John Wilson to be followed by Kevin Stewart. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, first of all, draw attention to my register of interests because I do have a particular interest in this issue of community empowerment. I have had an interest in community empowerment for a number of years, and I was reminded by the person sitting behind me that we actually had this debate in 1988 in terms of a particular community in the south side of Glasgow. First of all, I thank all those members who gave evidence to the committee, all those community groups who gave us evidence, as well as informal sessions that we had throughout Scotland with community groups, about what their expectation in terms of community empowerment was looking at in terms of their roles within their communities. To challenge Cameron Buchanan, it wasn't always just about what the Scottish Government was doing, it was what local authorities were doing to many communities. There was an engagement process that communities felt disempowered from when local authorities were making decisions, and what I am hoping is that this bill will take forward rights for many communities to actually be properly consulted, properly engaged with and feel truly empowered in terms of the decisions that are being made within their communities. I would also like to thank the ministers and Amin Ministers plural for their willingness to accept the comments that have been made both at stage 2 and the lead-up to stage 3 today in relation to the comments from members and others about what we would like to see in the bill and particularly the willingness to take on board and take forward some of the suggestions that have been made. The real test of any legislation passed by this chamber is the impact that it has in real terms for the communities throughout Scotland. There is an expectation that once enacted, this legislation will genuinely empower communities who have so far been failed in their attempts to engage meaningfully in shaping the delivery of services identified by the communities themselves. One of those areas is the asset transfer debate, because I am directly involved in community asset transfer negotiations at the present moment with the local authority. We look at local authorities and other public agencies and we ask them to consider what they mean by community asset transfers. Rob Gibson used the phrase about best value. I do not look at best value in economic terms. I look at best value for communities and what those asset transfers can deliver in terms of economic and social impact in those communities. Many communities have good ideas and have good visions in terms of what they can deliver as a community for their own community. Unfortunately, as Rob Gibson highlighted, for many public sector agencies and local authorities, they see an asset transfer of being a monetary value. We have to shape that and change that attitude that best value is about money, about what can be delivered, how it is delivered and who is delivering that. Clearly, many communities throughout Scotland want to engage in that process, to take forward their own projects and to deliver services in their communities. At the present moment, many of them are being held back by the very view that it comes out from, particularly local authorities, that they know best for those communities. It is about changing society and, hopefully, after almost 40 years of talking about community engagement, what we now see in that piece of legislation is genuine community empowerment to allow those communities to take forward their ideas and to engage meaningfully in the shaping of their futures. When we debated the community empowerment bill at stage 1 on 3 February this year, I pointed out that the unifying theme to that legislation was trust. Trust that communities all over Scotland know what is best for them and have the desire and ability to help to bring their ambitions to reality. Trust that the bill will give them a range of tools to make those desires a reality. Trust that our public services will rise to meet the opportunity that the bill presents for them to empower the communities that they serve. The level of input and engagement that we as parliamentarians have received from communities across Scotland as we have considered and amended the bill indicates that view. The 16th-century philosopher and statesman, Sir Francis Bacon, is reputed to have coined that well-known expression, knowledge is power. In this case, knowledge is empowerment. That is why I believe that a special duty now falls upon the Scottish Government, local government and other public bodies to empower communities across Scotland by informing them about the bill and the powers that it provides. Whether it be the ability to assume control of local community assets such as community halls or leisure venues or requests by local groups to participate in the delivery of public services in order to achieve an outcome, communities across Scotland can only take full advantage of those new powers if they know about them and have the necessary support to use them effectively. I would also call on all members of this chamber to promote the value of this legislation to our constituents and encourage them to be active in community-based organisations so that they can empower themselves and their local communities. As the convener of the committee who scrutinised the lion's share of this bill at stage one, I know well the appetite that exists in communities across Scotland to be empowered with the tools to help themselves. The community empowerment bill, which we have finalised this evening, will provide the foundations for a new framework of empowerment across Scotland. Crucially, this will be a framework of empowerment that will be designed and delivered by ordinary folk, living and working in their communities. It will help to free their ambitions from the often well-intentioned but stiflingly dead hand of officialdom and bureaucracy. Presiding Officer, since the bill was introduced into the Parliament in June 2014, Scotland has undertaken a remarkable journey of civic and community empowerment. The extraordinary level of public engagement and participation in the independence referendum, which has carried through to the recent UK general election, has provided the perfect platform from which to launch the bill. However, as with so many things in this life, the bill is not the end of a process, nor is it a means to an end in itself. Rather, we should see the community empowerment bill for what it is—a new staging post on the journey of empowerment that so many communities across Scotland are already embarked upon. The powers contained in the bill, if used to their fullest, can provide the confidence and impetus that our communities need to be able to take their future wellbeing into their own hands. That does not necessarily mean that the task will always be an easy one. Most worthwhile pursuits in life never are. However, I trust that it is a challenge folk all across Scotland are more than ready to meet. I would once again like to thank the thousands of ordinary people across the length and breadth of Scotland who engaged with the local government and regeneration committee on this bill. Their vital contribution has helped to shape the bill in ways that will benefit generations of Scots far into the future. Finally, I truly believe that the community empowerment bill will shift the balance of empowerment away from the agencies of the state and towards ordinary people in the communities that they live in. Communities across Scotland need to feel like they are in a partnership of equals with the agencies that provide them with the services that they need. Too often in the past, this has not been the case. This bill will go far to address this imbalance. For this reason, I very much look forward to voting this bill into law at decision time this evening. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I now call on Alex Rowley, after which we will move to the closing speeches. In the short time that I have, can I firstly congratulate and say well done to the local government committee? Can I absolutely associate myself with all the comments that John Wilson had to make? That I would like to be one bit in my speech, which John said. Can I now focus on something a bit different? The co-operation that we have seen in this bill is what I think we need to move forward with. This bill will be no plan to see her, for example, for the austerity that is in the unnecessary austerity that has now been imposed on public services across Scotland, and we need to address that. That is for another day. What I want to talk about is local government finance and how we address that. The minister has brought forward the commission on local taxation, and I welcomed that at the time. I have sat on it for a period of time, and I look forward to that commission concluding. The important thing is that the political parties in this chamber, and certainly my political party and the political party government, need to give an absolute commitment that we are going to put party politics to one side to be able to find a solution. If we try and outbid each other on council tax freezes, then all that we are going to do is do local government to another five-year freeze, which, as we know, will have an addictive impact on the ability of local authorities to be able to have sustainable long-term finance. If one party is frightened to move because the other party is going to make major political capital out of that and make it an election issue coming forward, I would say that the co-operation that we have seen with this bill, we need to give the absolute same commitment to work together the parties in this chamber to find a long-term sustainable approach to local government finance. As we move forward, can I say that, in terms of community planning, the Christie report has highlighted, and regardless of whether we were able to find that long-term sustainable approach to local government finance, Christie has approached that we cannot continue to do things that the way that we were doing things in the past and we need to find new ways to work in and we need to look at a more preventative agenda. I actually believe that this bill and the moves that have been made within this bill to ensure that community planning is able to involve, genuinely involve local communities and engage with local communities will help us move that agenda forward. We need to look at sometimes structures. The health and social care partnerships, for example, is something that absolutely supports, but whether that is the end of the road or whether you would actually want to bring these organisations together, whether you would want to govern them differently, only time will tell. However, as community planning partners, the health service, local authorities, the voluntary sector and there must be a greater role for the third sector, then this bill, I believe, will take us to the next step, because I am a believer that community planning is absolutely the correct way to go forward. It is also right that local people and local communities are able to determine what their local priorities are and where the local resources should be spent. The bill again takes us in this direction. I conclude by saying that I hope that across Scotland political parties and local government will see this bill as an opportunity to begin to work together in the interests of our communities. In this Parliament, the success of parties coming together and working together will mean that we will look to tackle the difficult issues like the future of local government funding and that we will work together. Many thanks. Now we move to the closing speeches. I call on Alex Ferguson four minutes thereby please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are almost at the culmination of what has been a very long and lengthy process involving, as we have heard, several parliamentary committees, a vast array of witnesses, stakeholders, civil servants, parliamentary staff and others. Whatever our overall views on this weighty piece of legislation, they should all be warmly thanked and I'm delighted to be able to do so from these benches. As the minister said in opening this debate, there are not many differences across the chamber on the overall aspirations of this bill, but there are differences on detail. We can't pretend that they don't exist despite the excellent spirit and sometimes humour that has marked today's stage 3 process. I ideally wish that the Government had differentiated between the right to buy in urban Scotland and the right to buy in rural Scotland, because I can see situations within an urban context that would absolutely justify a right to buy without a willing seller. However, I can also see that that could have significant unintended consequences when translated into a rural context. Several witnesses at the rural affairs committee echoed the desirability of making this differentiation, as did the law society, and I think that the bill is poorer for its absence. Marco Biagi also said during the discussion of amendments that everything in this bill is about empowering communities, and so it should be. However, as members will have picked up all afternoon, we on these benches believe that in seeking to empower communities, ministers are taking too much power onto themselves. We don't agree, for instance, that outcomes should be determined rather than prescribed by regulation. We don't agree that the identifying of local priorities by community planning partnerships should be decreed by ministers, and we don't believe that extending the definition of land eligible for a compulsory right to buy by a community is in any way helpful in delivering a clear, concise and easily understood way forward. This party is not against community ownership far from it, but the land eligible for takeover by any community under any circumstances should surely be clearly defined in law and not subject to the opinion of any individual or agency or, dare I say, politician. I do genuinely believe that the Scottish Government is absolutely genuine itself and its belief that it is going about the business of community empowerment in the right way with this bill, and there is much that is entirely commendable in it. I really and equally genuinely wish that we could give it our whole tarted support, but Tavish Scott made, I thought, really valid points about both the breadth of this bill and its clarity in some aspects, and those two issues are at the very core of the reservations that we hold. Not for the first time in this Parliament, Presiding Officer. I hope that our reservations may prove to be unfounded, but I fear that they will not be, and for the reasons that I have tried to outline in the brief space of time that is available to me, and despite the many positive aspects of this bill, we will actually be abstaining tonight at decision time. Thank you very much. Now, Colin, Ken Macintosh. Six minutes are thereby pleased, Mr Macintosh. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's been a long day, a tiring day, but I hope that it's very worthwhile one. For those of us who believe wholeheartedly in devolution in the principles of subsidiarity and of sharing power, the community empowerment bill is a very significant step indeed. I add my voice to the many members this evening who have thanked all of those contributors who have helped us to reach this point. To my mind, the most important issue that was flagged up in evidence to the committee from the outset, which was unanimously reflected in the committee's deliberations, was the argument that the bill should not only seek to increase participation from the community in decision making, but perhaps more importantly, it should redistribute influence on decision making more equally across diverse communities. That argument was put most forcefully by contributors from the voluntary sector, including Oxfam, the Poverty Alliance, Barnardo and many more such organisations. I would thank each of them for their persuasive input to this particular piece of legislation. The worry expressed was that the passing of the bill would simply seed more power to those already accustomed to participating in local decision making. One of the most important amendments agreed was therefore legislative recognition that, when laying down the national outcome framework, socio-economic levels within individual communities will be taken into account. The Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, CRER, was one of the many aforementioned organisations that welcomed the bill's ambition to reduce inequalities of outcome arising from socio-economic disadvantage. However, they felt strongly that there should also be a focus to reduce inequalities of outcome that arise from race discrimination. I did not wish to introduce new material at stage, particularly on such a consensual bill—I am very relieved to hear that I am sure that I did not have an extra amendment to this afternoon—so I did not move that amendment. I would, however, welcome, even at this late stage, any reassurance that the minister can offer in winding up that he recognises that black and minority ethnic communities may not be in the best position to take advantage of the provisions in this bill, and that the Scottish Government will take steps to address those barriers to community participation created by prejudice and discrimination. Picking out just a couple of the many important subjects that are covered today in the bill, empowering communities essentially is about giving citizens the opportunity to influence decisions that matter to them. That is why we were happy to back the football supporters' right to buy amendment proposed by Alison Johnstone. We are all very aware, I am sure, of the powerless state of many Scottish football clubs and the less than altruistic intentions of some owners. Sports clubs in general play a crucial role in communities all over Scotland and allowing those that care the most about those clubs to make decisions on their future will only further enrich this important aspect of society. We were particularly pleased to see those amendments agreed to without division at the committee stage. Having now conceded that the minister would prefer to consult further and bring back proposals by regulation or subordinate legislation, I hope that the ministers will appreciate our on-going anxiety that the Government fulfills this commitment in as short a timescale as possible. Turning to the subject of allotments—Rabbi McNeill notwithstanding—despite the minister's good intentions, there was a danger at one point that, instead of improving prospects for Scotland's many allotment holders and giving them some kind of statutory protection, we almost ended up voting down the entire section. It is to the credit of the minister, of the committee and, in particular, of the members of SAGS, the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society, that the bill has now been amended to address the real demand for access to small plots of land that clearly exist across Scotland. As with so many aspects of the bill, the real test now lies ahead when we put the law into practice. Allotments do not just offer an opportunity for those who wish to enjoy the benefits of gardening or working outdoors. They contribute to public policy on food, social justice, health and wellbeing, reducing carbon emissions and enhancing the natural environment. For example, will the bill deliver more allotments, fewer people waiting and more people with a plot of their own? That is when we will really see to what extent we have empowered our communities. I want to conclude with one final point, Presiding Officer, if I may. This has been a very collaborative and consensual process, again, as many closing speakers have remarked. I believe that the legislation is all the better for that. I would thank the ministers for their role in such a co-operative and constructive operation, but I particularly want to thank the members of the local government committee. It is interesting that there is no Government majority on this committee, and the result has not been opportunism or oppositional politics from the non-governmental majority, but mature, respectful and rational discussion. All members have sought to reach agreement rather than force their views on others. For those who recollect Parliament before 2011, it was a reminder of how we used to achieve a balance between the power of the executive and the legislator. There have just been occasional disappointments. We did not pass the European charter on local government, despite the opportunity that it is offered to display our commitment to subsidiarity. Many of us welcomed the reminder during the discussion that gave us that the concordat is now dead and buried. It was slightly worrying that, in a choice between the council tax freeze and subsidiarity, the freeze seems to have won. I would echo the point raised by my colleague Alec Rowley, that if we are going to take a consensual approach, that local government finance offers an opportunity to us all. A very consensual bill, a well-intentioned bill and an empowering bill, it is now up to all of us to put the powers into action and let us practice the devolution that we preach. Mr Macintosh, can I call on Mark Obeidge, the minister, to wind up? I want to identify a problem with this bill. I know that this is a pretty late stage to do it, given that it is the winding-up stage 3, but that is that if somebody comes to you, as people have been for some time, and asks you to sum it up in a sentence, it is pretty hard to do, that is a bill that has been identified as a common thread of empowering communities through greater says in decision making or forms of direct ownership, but it is very hard to simply summarise the broad range of ways that it seeks to embody that principle. It is really important because communities have different priorities. There is no one solution, there is no one catch-all or magic wand. In touring Scotland, since I became the local government minister, I have seen examples of communities doing very, very different things. In some cases, they identify that childcare is the issue of creating nursery, like Castleton stables nursery and Castle milk. Regeneration in Govan Hill, Craig Miller, arts facilities in Kilmarnock, Elgin, Gala Shields, where not just for the sake of arts is the community working through those sorts of activities, but also providing opportunities for young people both to gain skills and to gain confidence. There is the community centre in Merkinch, others in Irvine, in Alloa that just offer everything, including a reptile fancier's club that I had the great pleasure of visiting in the latter visit. The Comash shop in Dumbydikes, the crags community and sports centre, and I too have high hopes that our neighbourhood here in the Parliament will see some progress for the building that Sarah Boyack mentioned. In a couple of months, I am going to Campbelltown to see their community on cinema and airport. Is that not proof, really, literally that if communities have the ambition, the sky is the limit? Well, I could not let Alison Johnstone be the only one to deliver a pun today, could I? I can actually speak now, which is an improvement as well. In looking at all of this, in touring Scotland, I have seen a few groups that have imparted on me the importance of some of the points that have been made here. What Rob Gibson identified as that first step when you go from being a group of volunteers or a group of people with an interest and an idea to take that to the next level really is an important step and one that we have to make sure is properly supported as we take the bill forward. The bill itself, as has been highlighted, took no fewer than three ministers to bring home. Looking at the football teams' worth of substantive parts, there are now 11 parts. In this debate, three of them seem to stay on the bench. We did not have conversations in great detail about forestry, common good or local non-domestic rates—all important provisions that the bill is touching on to provide further community empowerment in those areas. One moment, minister. Can people who are coming into chamber please do so quietly and stop talking and let the minister get on with his speech? Will you give way? To Mr Stewart always. I wonder, Presiding Officer, if the minister would agree with me that in some regards some of those things have not come up today because we dealt with a number of those things at earlier stages. For example, forestry concerns by the Scottish Woodlot Association were dealt with at a very early stage. Again, it comes back to the consensus that there was across the local government committee and the others, too. Indeed, and I was just about to come on to that point in response to Tavish Scott's question about scrutiny and what we have heard from other front-benchers that this is a shining example of how the Parliament's committees looked in great detail at a wide range of issues and produced very positive recommendations that the Government was happy to take on. When you go through the bill as well, there is this wide range of issues. I would just like to respond to some of the things that have been pointed out. On land reform, Claudia Beamish raised the issue of support. As with all sections of the bill, ensuring that people have the means to come forward and take advantage are highly critical. Asset transfer and its interaction with best value has come up on several occasions. I think that we have to recognise that best value was conceived as something that was more than simply market value, and it is important that everybody takes that on. Cameron Buchanan made a point about allotments, about ministerial control. The ministerial consent for change of use of allotments, away from allotments, has been controlled since the local government Scotland act 1973. It is something with some pedigree. Pardon me for being a younger member, but I do believe that it was a Conservative Government at the time, but perhaps Mr Buchanan is more of a Thatcher man than a Heath man in terms of the past records of those Governments. In looking at it, it is a long-established provision that we were asked by stakeholders to bring in. We have also touched on how much we took on ideas from around the Parliament. When you look through it, we have locality planning, assistance with participation that came in from Alex Rowley. We have contributions on allotments from Ken Macintosh. We have issues about participation requests when it comes to joint authorities that were raised with us by Tavish Scott. Cameron Buchanan, for all of my little disagreement with him there on CPPs, we have taken on issues about appeals that he has raised. John Wilson reporting deadlines, allios, unconstituted but still representative groups, Michael Russell appeals on asset transfer, Alison Johnstone football, land reform suggestions from Sarah Boyack, Claudia Beamish, Alex Ferguson. That has been a bill where every member of this Parliament can feel part of. Many MSPs can look at and say, I made this. What we have also learned is that Alison Johnstone's football puns are terrible or scriptwriter should get a red card, as should mine. Alex Ferguson can sometimes, believe it or not, stand up for tenants as he was happily portraying as being a change of heart. We learned in the passage of the allotment sections that just about everybody seems to be an allotment holder, whether that is opposition, folks, people, the official in charge or the people that were coming in front of us. Crazies clearly have moved on from cabbage patch dolls to cabbage patches for real. I am not going to do any more, because I think that this community here, this community's priority and need is for one, me to stop telling bad jokes and two, for me to wind up. If there is a conclusion, it is that much of what we are trying to codify here is already happening. There are trailblazers out there who are making superhuman efforts to achieve stronger, empowered communities, but it should not require you to be superhuman to do this. That is why we want to make it in a whole range of areas just a little bit easier to be that active community, to step forward, to recognise that regeneration is done by communities, not to communities and to ensure that we empower the disempowered across this country and create the healthy, vibrant democracy and society that all of us in this chamber want to see. That concludes the debate and the puns on the Community Employment Scotland Bill. The next site of business is consideration of business motion 13538 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 13538. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 13538 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 13538. The next site of business is consideration of business motion 13538 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 13537. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 13537 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next site of business is consideration of three Parliamentary Bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 13539 on approval of an SSI, motion number 13531 on the suspension of standing orders and motion number 13532 on the establishment of a committee. Thank you. The question on these motions will be put a decision time to which we now come. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 13523 in the name of Markle B.R.J. On the community empowerment Scotland Bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cancel votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 13523 in the name of Markle B.R.J. is as follows. Yes, 101. No, 0. There were 15 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to and the community empowerment Scotland Bill is passed. The next question is at motion number 13539 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on approval of an SSI be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 13531 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on the suspension of standing orders be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 13532 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on the establishment of a committee be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to and that concludes decision time.