 Could you like it to something else? That degree of cleverness was not in display today. When I moved toяютong business, which is a debate on motion number 1220, in the name Marko Biajie on the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill, members would wish take part in the debate, if calls you to process to request to speak I want to remove the motion, Mr Biagae, when you are ready, 14 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to begin this stage 1 debate by thanking a lot of other people as well. Very much is a lot of people, because even though the name suggests that this is stage 1 and suggests the first stage, all of us parliamentarians know how much work has gone into this and any other bill already before we get here. My colleague and predecessor, Derek Mackay, took what began as a scattered set of suggestions in the SNP manifesto, tended them through two consultations, 40 engagement events and helped them to spring forth into today's community empowerment bill. All I can say is that he took much better care of them than he did the plant in what is now my office in Victoria He. I would also like to thank the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill, but most of all the two subject committees Kevin Stewart and the members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, along with Rob Gibson and the members of the Racky Committee, who looked at part 4 on community right to buy in particular. Together, they have produced a ream of recommendations. The Government is considering all of them closely in advance of stage 2. I mean that a ream. The paper that I have in front of me runs to 44 pages alone. They were helped in that, no doubt by the conscious efforts that they made to take evidence from an unusually wide range of organisations and individuals. As I said, the Government will consider those recommendations. We will also examine any ideas put forward today in the spirit of making this bill the best bill that we can possibly make it. Sessions for the committee took place in Fort William and Dumfries, along with innovative use of social media and online video to help to explain aspects of the bill. For me, it is heartening to see colleagues make it easy for people to participate in the development of a bill that should be all about participation. Thank you also to everyone who took some time to offer their views and experiences to the committee or to the Scottish Government. I have to say that time and time again from organisations and from many individuals, I have heard a real confidence, a really encouraging confidence, that the bill will make a real difference and help to make public bodies and agencies look at community empowerment in a different way. Today, I come to this debate to present this bill, to endorse its aims and to ask for members on all sides to join together to back it. We all know that communities can do great things when empowered to achieve their goals, when given the freedom to choose their own path, responsibility over their own surroundings and are trusted to take their own decisions. Already in places such as Craig Miller, Inverness, Govind Hill, Irvin and Kilmarnock, I've met grassroots groups who are each doing remarkable things within their own communities and doing so in their own way and on their own terms. There's just so much talent out there, it needs a bit of self-belief, some encouragement and for unnecessary obstacles to be taken out of the way. That is what the community empowerment bill sets out to do. By creating new rights for community bodies and new duties on a whole range of public authorities, it provides a new legal framework and hopefully stimulates the growth of the new mindset that you can never legislate for that will promote and encourage community empowerment and participation. Since the bill was introduced in June last year, the demand for that participation and empowerment has only grown. Our historic referendum proved, as if proof were needed, that people will get involved when they know the issues at stake and know that they can make a difference to them. Across this chamber, we believe in more powers for this Parliament because that too is a form of bringing control over decision-making closer to the people that it affects. We now need to build on this new sense of what can be achieved. This legislation contributes to that spirit, that purpose of democratic renewal, and does so tangibly in ways that you can instantly recognise even if, sometimes, yes, I accept from the local government committee that it can be hidden by a bit of Gogboldy Gooke. We have done our best to produce easy-read policy memorandums and we will be putting a guidance in plain English, but that recommendation more than anything is taken. Part 1 of the bill takes the national outcomes approach, which is currently represented by Scotland Performs, and puts it in statute with duties on the Scottish Government to develop, to consult on, to publish, to review and report on what we should think of as a set of indicators for the kind of Scotland we want to see, for the community of the whole nation that has to be and will be an empowering process. By also putting community planning partnerships into statute in part 2, we will develop the role and performance of CPPs, not least in ensuring that public bodies work together in those bodies and with the public. Part 3's participation requests will give communities a new power to enter into dialogue with public authorities to ensure that their voices are always heard. This simple power will remind everyone that communities should always be around the table when decisions affecting them are being taken. Part 4 of the bill, meanwhile, led by my colleague the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, deals with the community right to buy that exists within the Land Reform Act. That part of the bill will simplify the process, make it more flexible to use, extend the type of community bodies that are able to access the community right to buy and, crucially, expand the extent of those communities that can take forward such a right. Community right to buy will be extended from rural Scotland to all of Scotland. Community right to buy is also extended by introducing a right to buy neglected or abandoned land, even if there is no willing seller. We do recognise that committees and stakeholders have all asked for clarification of what type of land is covered by this, and we have sought the views of stakeholders and discussed with them what would be required. My colleague the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will therefore provide draft regulations that will detail those matters that must be considered when determining whether or not land is neglected or abandoned in advance of stage 2. Those matters could, for example, include the physical condition of the land, the use or lack of use to which it is being put and the effect that that has on the surrounding land. Moving on, part 5 will make it easier for communities to take control of a public asset, whether that is a community centre, a patch of public land or whatever. The sky is the limit for what the ingenuity and local knowledge that is released by community participation can achieve. The common good asset registers in part 6 will mean more transparency over those, as well as increased community involvement in the decisions taken about them. Part 7 will create a new duty on local authorities to keep a waiting list of those wanting an allotment, paired with a duty to, quote, take reasonable steps, unquote, to ensure that those waiting lists do not grow too long. Let me be clear that that will mean more allotments. I think that all MSPs have been in the seat of a piece of lobbying from the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society. For whatever reason, the society feels threatened by the legislation, perceived or real. I am not sure what the real issue is there for them. However, we would have a potential way forward if the minister could give an indication that he would be prepared to support the exploration of grandfather rights for individuals who are already in allotment areas, who continue to keep those rights in future and who could enshrine that in law, and any new allotments that were created could fall under the legislation that is being proposed. That may be a potential solution to help everyone through this difficulty. On Friday, I spoke to Ian Welsh of the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society and committed to consulting on using one of the powers that the bill creates over the issue of size. We would be aiming to do so in ways that address concerns about size while also allowing flexibility to ensure that those who want differently sized plots can have their needs met as well. That is something that is focused on the people who are coming into allotments. Clearly, anybody who has an existing lease or agreement under the existing legislation with a local authority is going to come into a lot of contract, a lot of rental law there, and that is certainly something that we could look at. I do not believe that the changes would lead to significant impacts on existing contracts in that regard, although councils do have the ability to review rents and in any rental contract they would have that. There is a possibility that we could look at what additional rights are coming in and examine how we could have transitional arrangements or, indeed, on-going arrangements where that might be disadvantageous. However, I would come to the chamber saying that this set of additional rights for allotments takes areas that have not been legislated for—in some cases, for 123 years—and creates additional rights, as far as I can tell, in every area that I have been looking at today. However, that is an area of on-going dialogue, and I will continue to speak to the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society so that we understand each other and that we are able to reach an agreement. Finally, part 8 will allow councils—after that, it seems like it might be last but not least—to support and encourage businesses and target areas in their areas through local business rate relief schemes. Together, each of those parts provides new measures individually, but together they help to change the culture—we hope—around community empowerment to make such local approaches routine. However, we recognise that, if all of our communities are to be empowered, some communities will require support. The local government committee was right to highlight that, and we wish to see all communities able to keep up in the race to take advantage of those new powers. At stage 2, therefore, we will not be standing still ourselves. Alongside the committee evidence, we have already been discussing and debating with partners and stakeholders how the bill might be improved on what was introduced to Parliament seven months ago. We propose to include amendments to appeal procedures for asset transfer requests and the publication of asset registers, but the central change has to be an even greater focus on reducing inequalities. Our bill stands alongside a whole range of existing duties and policies targeted in this area, and we believe that inequalities are reduced by empowering communities that, where communities lead their own regeneration and control their own future, they will take the right steps forward. We will, however, bring amendments to ensure that both the national outcomes and community planning approaches align to reducing inequalities. However, we also intend to require public bodies to make inequality a material concern in making decisions on the key participation requests and asset transfer mechanisms. We want to see those communities that have been most excluded to take those well-deserved seats at the table and those that have been most disempowered to take control of their own surroundings. Today, the cabinet secretary announced an extra £5.6 million for the People and Community Fund. That will be part of the overall empowering communities pot, which now stands at £19.4 million of support. With the aim of empowering those communities, we have also been particularly impressed by participatory budgeting, where funding decisions are taken directly by the people affected. Scottish Government-funded PB training events over recent months have drawn crowds from public bodies and local authorities, and we have received a great deal of interest in our offer for new PB projects. We know of around two dozen that have taken place in the last decade already, including the well-established Leith decides, which is going ahead this weekend. Together with the cabinet secretary, I have consulted the participatory budgeting working group, and I am considering options, including legislative, to ensure that this agenda moves forward. Participatory budgeting is a relatively new form of community engagement, but public bodies have known how to do community engagement very well for many years. The national standards for community engagement have been the basis for this, and I intend to use them as the foundation for guidance on community participation that will go to community planning partnerships under new statutory guidance powers. CPPs must be the forum where high-level decisions are taken for entire authority areas, but there is much to commend. Similar partnership approaches are also being taken more locally, where grassroots community groups in all their diversity can more easily input directly. On Saturday, I will be visiting a charrette hosted by Glasgow Canal's regeneration partnership, where the community can come together just like that with facilitators and designers, and over a few days develop an image or set of options for the design of their community. Charrettes are a participatory approach to planning. They have been supported by the Scottish Government for four years, and they are just one of the countless examples already out there of people coming together to play their part in their own future. I do not want to say that we need to up our game because there are clearly so many great examples of excellence out there already, but we have a unique opportunity with this bill to ensure that our greatest asset, the people who live and work in Scotland, are even better able to make decisions about their future on their terms. We believe, will believe and always have believed that, if they do so, they will be better decisions. This bill is an opportunity that we must come together today to seize. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Community Empowerment Scotland bill. At this stage of the debate, I have a little bit of time in hand if members wish to take interventions. I call on Kevin Stewart to speak on behalf of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of my colleagues and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. I thank the current and past members of the committee for the work that they have undertaken, not only in scrutinising the bill but also in the wider topic of community empowerment. The committee has been examining community empowerment in one form or another for the past three years. I will elaborate a little more on that later. I also want to extend my thanks to all the witnesses who provided written and oral evidence to the committee, as well as hundreds of people from all over Scotland who took part in various community engagement events with us. Thanks are also due to all the people who helped to facilitate the committee's various fact-finding visits across Scotland over the past three years. That proved to be invaluable preparation for our scrutiny of the legislation. I also take the opportunity to thank our colleagues and the Delegated Powers and Finance Committee for their scrutiny of the bill. In particular, I would like to thank the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee under the convenership of Rob Gibson for their consideration of part 4 of the bill on community right to buy. I know that the work proved to be a big ask for a committee with a very full programme of work. However, my colleagues and I greatly appreciate the knowledge and expertise that the members of the Rural Affairs Committee brought to the examination of community right to buy. We have accepted their recommendations to us in full. I am sure that members of the Rural Affairs Committee will say more about that during the debate. I would also like to thank the former minister, Derek Mackay, and all the various officials at the Scottish Government who worked to bring this legislation to fruition. I hope that we can work in tandem with the current minister to ensure that we make this bill the best that it possibly can be. Ernest Hemingway once said that the best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them. I think that this piece of advice neatly sums up the core philosophy at the heart of the community empowerment bill. On first glance, it may be difficult to see a unifying theme to this legislation, as it seems to cover so many different areas. However, in truth, the unifying themes at the heart of the bill is 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, despite all the challenges that they have faced and will continue to face, our public services can work together to empower communities and deliver the outcomes that they need. Trust that communities can make better use of public assets, such as buildings or lands, than local authorities or the wider public sector can. Trust that CPP partners will help to facilitate that public trust by being able to work in partnership with communities. The bill is not about imposing a framework or compelling various public bodies to undertake various actions that we wish them to undertake. It is about providing communities across Scotland with the tools that they need to take decisions for themselves and trusting them to use those tools wisely. In short, it is about putting the power in community empowerment. I will take Ms McAlpine. In terms of compelling organisations to do things, you will be aware that the Scottish Woodlot Association has raised concerns about the Forestry Act 1967, which prevents community groups from taking forestry commission land for woodland projects. I wonder what the committee's view was on that. I thank Ms McAlpine for her intervention. Only yesterday, Sunday and yesterday, Andy Brown of the Scottish Woodlot Association has been in touch with the committee. He is pleased that we have the recommendation that the Forestry Commission Scotland should be able to lease state forest land to not-for-profit co-operatives. That helps the Scottish Woodlot Association and what it is trying to achieve. I hope that that is the case. I have mentioned trust. With all trust comes a degree of risk. Indeed, risk is at the very heart of what it means to trust. As we have heard during our evidence-taking on this bill, many public sector stakeholders are keenly aware of potential risks that may arise as a result of the change that this bill will help to foster. However, from the widespread community engagement that we have undertaken as a committee, we feel confident that legislation will not only benefit communities but also the wider public service. In our scrutiny of the bill, we have made great efforts to engage with the people that the bill will affect. Firstly, since early 2012, we have sought to use our entire work programme to take opportunities to examine community empowerment and inform ourselves of how it has developed as a mechanism for delivering change over the last decade or more. Over the last three years, the local government committee has taken advantage of seven major pieces of work to examine the issue of community empowerment. Our scrutiny of the local government finance unoccupied properties bill, our strand 3 inquiry on public services reform, which saw us undertake three interlinked inquiries over 18 months, our scrutiny of the 2013-14 draft budget, our scrutiny of the third national planning framework and, most recently, our inquiry into the delivery of regeneration in Scotland. Secondly, we have taken every opportunity to communicate with real people and communities across the length and breadth of Scotland and to do so in as clear a manner as possible. We have undertaken 10 fat-finding visits and have had four full meetings of the committee outside Edinburgh. We have visited places as diverse as Kelso, Cumbernauld, Paisley, Mabel, Stornoway, Dumfries and Fort William. During those visits, we have held round table discussions with local people and community groups about community empowerment. Clark has estimated that more than 600 people have attended those engagement sessions in person with more joining in via social media. Thirdly, the committee has taken to heart the reform agenda set forth by the Presiding Officer to engage with the people of Scotland as widely as possible using modern technology. To this end, we have made widespread use of both Twitter and Facebook to engage with people and garner their views in the bill. We have recently established the first of our Scottish Parliament Committee Instagram account to make use of the visual evidence that we have collated. During our visit to Stornoway, we held a live interactive Twitter discussion in both English and Gaelic with people in all three island authorities. That focused on what those communities felt they needed to empower themselves. We have also made some YouTube videos, and I ask members to have a look at that. On the actual situations that we have found, we have made differences to people's lives already in the course of dealing with the bill. We visited Dumfries and our video highlights the excellent work of a community group called The Usual Place in Dumfries, and the vital services that they are providing in the Dumfries and Galloway area, such as a changing places toilet. I am happy to say that the committee was able to play a small role in helping this worthy organisation to secure a lease with Dumfries and Galloway Council on a property for their use. That, we believe, is a good example of community empowerment at its best. I must pay thanks to the media team for allowing us the opportunity to participate in those videos. The minister mentioned gobbledygook and official speak, and I think that that is a great turn-off for many folks who want to become involved. I am glad that the minister has raised that today. I hope that he will continue to follow the committee's line that we must eradicate that so that we allow for the maximum amount of participation possible. Let's look at our findings and recommendations. In part 1 of the bill, we address national outcomes. Given the focus placed on scrutiny of outcomes, we consider that the Scottish Government should report annually on the extent to which national outcomes have been achieved. That would inform the Parliament's budget scrutiny process. Such reports should be available before the publication of the annual draft Scottish budget each year. Part 2 relates to community planning. As a committee, we are concerned that local communities are not sufficiently and directly involved with community planning partnerships. We recommend that the Government amends the bill to require CPPs to seek involvement from a level below that of community representative, as well as a high-less involvement that will be assessed. There should be an explicit requirement on all CPPs to include community capacity building in local plans and to report on progress in every annual report. Part 3 of the bill deals with participation requests. There can be no doubt, Presiding Officer, that the bill is generally a welcome boost towards putting power in the hands of communities. However, for a bill that is designed to empower, the committee was struck by the requirement that only groups with a written constitution could submit a participation request. That seems to be out of step with the whole ethos of the bill. In the words of Jeannie Mackenzie, who responded to our video on participation requests, she said that sometimes an individual has a very good idea for improving public services but lacks the time or opportunity to find others and form a constituted group. We recommend that the bill be amended to allow individuals to submit participation requests. Given the need to legislate in this area, it is vital that progress in participation requests is closely monitored. We also recommend that the bill requires all public service authorities to produce periodic public reports, which is in paragraph 261 to 270 of our report, which sets out recommendations for the areas to be covered by this process. As I have already stated, part 4 of the bill and community right to buy was considered by the Rural Affairs Committee, so I will leave members of that committee to speak about that issue. Part 5 deals with asset transfers. Some of our recommendations in this area are directed at the changes that are required to public bodies to ensure that the intention of the bill is achieved in practice. That will require again close monitoring. Part 6 relates to the management of common good assets. Given the approach that was outlined by the minister during oral evidence-taking, we saw no difficulty in the bill specifying a maximum timescale for the compilation of common good registers. I am afraid that I must ask you to come to a close. Part 7 relates to allotments, and we have already heard a little bit about that from members. We have made recommendations there, too. Part 8 deals with non-domestic rates, and I may come back to that later if I get to intervene. In conclusion, I go back to the first principle of that. All of that is about trust. It is about time that we trusted our communities, and I hope that we will do so, and that I commend our report on stage 1 of the community empowerment bill. I am going to start with a quote from Lyndon Johnson, where he says, "...you do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do, and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." For me, that is a good starting point with this bill. I welcome the fact that the minister today and the cabinet secretary previously have indicated that they want to have much further discussion, and they are willing to look at addressing some of the issues in this bill as we come forward to stage 2. The Labour Party's point of view supports the principle of the bill, but we recognise that there is a need for greater clarity in terms of the bill. There are still far too many questions unanswered to highlight. I will hopefully go through a few in the 10 minutes, but the participation request, if there is no right to appeal and the uncertainty that is there, then in some senses what would be the point. There is the need for teeth and to have more strength in terms of this bill. Mark O'Biagge talks about inequalities are reduced when you empower communities. I would not disagree with that, but I really say to you that I am not sure in terms of this bill, and it has been highlighted and I will say more about it, particularly if you are aiming at those communities that are the least empowered at the present time. There is a real worry coming through all the evidence of the committee report, etc. I think that this bill needs more strength and more teeth if we are serious about community empowerment, and I am not sure that it actually goes there. Therefore, I think that there is a greater need for much improvement in terms of this bill itself. That is why I would commend Kevin Stewart and the local government committee for the exhaustive work that they have carried out. They have brought forward a report with a whole range of detailed recommendations that demonstrate that not only have they been very active in taking evidence, but they have listened to that evidence, and there are a whole range of recommendations that they bring forward that I am sure will form the basis of discussions that we can have with the Government as we start to move forward. I would want to draw attention to the finance committee report, because we cannot go past today without highlighting the fact that the committee, while acknowledging that there are difficulties faced in quantifying the potential future costs from services that will be demand-driven, remains concerned that, despite the requirements of standing orders, best estimates have not been fully provided. There are a number of local authorities that gave evidence to the finance committee and, indeed, to the local government and communities committee, and they highlighted many concerns that are echoed perhaps through East Lothian, who say that local government will incur extra costs as a result of those provisions, a new legislative burden, and that it may not be possible to allocate money to those. In the Go On number, Clyde, Glasgow City Council, North Ayrshire and North Lanark, all those councils raised concerns, and I think that legitimately they raised concerns, because the bill team confirmed that it would be part of the normal discussions with local authorities through annual budget and processes. Local authorities would have to demonstrate and quantify what was involved and go through the discussions with the Scottish Government. The fact is that we know at this time that local authorities are in a position where they are, cutting front-line services, the length and breadth of Scotland, regardless of the political colour of the local authority—not at this stage—regardless of the colour of the political authority. My concern in raising this is not about local government finance. It is that, if the monies are not available, then cost itself and the theory cost could become a barrier in public organisations when trying to, hopefully, move the bill forward with the spirit that is intended. The finance committee flags up those points, and Mr Stewart's committee flags up those points, and it is important that we flag them up today. The committee believed that this was such a major concern that the report wants to draw the attention of the finances to the Parliament today. The committee was divided in that point, but it would be fair to say that there were some concerns. Would Mr Rowley agree with the Scottish Community Alliance director, Angus Harry, who says that, while recognising the validity of the concerns highlighted by the committee with regard to the financial memorandum, the Scottish Community Alliance would urge MSPs to support the passage of the bill to the next stage? Do you agree with Mr Rowley that we should allow for the bill to go to the next stage? I have said to Kevin Stewart that the principle of community empowerment is one that the Scottish Labour Party absolutely supports, but there are serious questions, and those questions over finance should be raised with the Parliament. That is just a fact. Would the member agree with me that some of his opening comments about the poor legislation and the challenges in the bill would he agree with the latest statement from the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society, where it asks for section 7 from the bill in order to make it a secret legislation? I think the member for intervention. I should probably declare an interest as a very keen allotment grower, but I think that there needs to be further discussion with the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society, because I think that they raise a number of issues there that, with the greatest respect, the minister did not address in the intervention question from Kevin Stewart. I think that we need the points that they make. On the issue of discussion with the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society, I have been out, I have visited allotments, and I met them. I discussed the five points that they were putting forward. We talked about it. I talked on the phone on Friday with the president of the organisation, and there has been a continuing dialogue. That dialogue will go on, but it is very important to try to identify what it is that it is looking for. Right now, that is the sticking point for what we need to do in the legislation, but my door is open and my phone is on. I agree with the minister. The five points that they make will start the basis of a discussion. I think that the letter that they have submitted is the missed opportunity that we are not taking in terms of this bill linking it to the food strategy, linking it to health and wellbeing, and coming in through the community plan and partnerships, and building it into local community plans at a local area. I believe that they rightly point out that there is a missed opportunity. We should be able to have those discussions, and I am happy to join the minister in those discussions. As I say, I am very much a keen allotment grower, and I would like to see allotments expand. If I can very quickly in the time that I have highlight a few other issues that I would like to go through. The Inclusion Scotland talks about an absence of genuine and meaningful community capacity building and the engagement that the opportunities created by the bill will not be equally distributed. Communities that are the most marginalised, fractured and impoverished are likely to benefit least, while communities that are already rich in resources and human assets are likely to benefit most through their acquisition of new assets, part 3 of the bill. The committee itself highlights those very same points, and all I would say is that I think that those are genuine points, and we really need to take them on board. They also highlight the definition of community, and I have to say that I was quite surprised when reading that brief this morning, because I thought that we were saying that we would look at community much more widely, and I thought that that was the position of the Government, but I read the brief this morning and discovered that, given the evidence to one of the committees, that was not what was said, so I think that we need to take that point on board. If we are serious going back to the point that I made at the start and the point that the minister made in introducing us, if we are serious about tackling inequalities and tackling poverty, then empowerment is one part of that. Getting community planning right is one part of that, and I have previously, in a previous role, met with the finance secretary and had a discussion, and I am absolutely committed to the idea of community planning. In order to do that, we must recognise the points that Inclusion Scotland is making. Inclusion Scotland believes that the requirement placed on community groups to request participation disempowers rather than empowers communities as it leaves the powers with the public bodies, which instead should have a duty to engage with communities. Again, some very serious points that I think we have got to pick up and we have got to look at if we are serious about the principles of this bill, and all those points are highlighted in the evidence for the committee. We then go to the other briefing that I read this morning that came in for Bernard O's, Oxfam and others, and I do note that they talk about participatory budgeting, and it is something that the minister said that he is interested in, and there has been some points put in there. I would also say that I am a big believer that there is a fourth tier of government in Scotland, and that fourth tier is community councils. Now, a lot of people criticise community councils—we discussed it in the committee itself—and say that community councils often tell you what they are against rather than what they are for. My own constituency says that there were three community councils that had elections only a few months ago. The turnout was 22 per cent, 23 per cent, which is not bad when you consider that in the by-election in Kirkcalder it was 27 per cent, which was actually good for a by-election, so there was 20 odd per cent in the communities in Kelty, in Carnden and in the community in London Finance that turned out to elect local community councillors. The argument, if you go back to the local government report that was produced previously, looking at empowerment and voting patterns, is that if councils have more powers, more people are likely to come out and vote, likewise with the fourth tier of government in Scotland. There is a tier there, and whether it is getting those types of budgets down through participating budgets or getting budgets down to a local level to empower communities to be able to take local action, I think that it is worth further exploring. I will pull us to a close, but I would say that this right to request to participate, we have to look at that again because you cannot have that without proper appeals. Scottish Labour is absolutely committed to empowering communities. We need a progressive agenda that puts far more power into this Parliament from Westminster, but actually coming out of this Parliament into local communities, that is the way ahead. This bill needs a lot more work. We are certainly up for working with the Government and with partners to ensure that we can move things forward. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This bill before us contains some provisions that I agree with and some that I do not, but I do welcome the principle of community empowerment. I am just not sure if this bill truly empowers communities in the most appropriate way. Although there have been areas of broad agreement, there remain a number of concerns that I wish to raise today in the hope that further discussion will help to resolve the issues. It is vital that key terms in the bill are defined properly, but this unfortunately does not appear to be the case at present. In addition, it is a fundamental point that bills must be costed before they put to Parliament for approval, and as yet this has not happened. Finally, I would like to say that I welcome the general provisions regarding allotments, but I wish to see greater clarity on this as the bill progresses. Before I begin to elaborate on the aspects of this bill, where I believe that some work is needed, I would like to reiterate my agreement with the principle of enabling local communities to have a greater say in their local areas. However, I am not sure that this bill, as it stands, would empower communities in the most appropriate way. Furthermore, it is vital that definitions of when a community's right to buy can be enforced, they are set up very clearly. An absolute right to buy without strict and obvious conditions would set definitely a very damaging precedent that is neither fair nor in Scotland's best interests. My colleague Mr Ferguson will elaborate on those points in today's debate. One of the key aspects of the bill to be assessed as it passes through this Parliament is the estimate of the costs that will arise as a result of its provisions. In our report, the committee has expressed its concern that the best estimate of costs arising from all provisions have not been provided, despite the requirements of standing orders, as Mr Rowley has said. I feel the need, too, to reiterate those concerns in the strongest terms, because this omission in particular regarding asset transfer or participation requests is a serious matter that must be addressed before the bill goes to stage 2. Members of this Parliament should not be expected to accurately debate the merits of this bill without proper costings. We cannot be expected to sign off a blank check. We may hear the excuses that are difficult as in quantifying future costs of writing provisions from provisions that will depend on the amount of demand, but I do not think that that is any excuse since the committee in this chamber expects estimates within accompanying ranges. I am sure that many fellow members share my concerns in this regard, and I expect and hope that they will be addressed as soon as possible. Moving on to a particular aspect of the bill, I will first of all say that I welcome its aims to make clear provisions regarding allotments. They are very valuable to many people in Scotland, and it is important to explore how we can help. Accordingly, I do agree with a number of provisions, but I would like to raise two particular aspects that I believe should be considered. The first is provisions regarding the size of an allotment plot. The points that the committee heard regarding traditional plot sizes, they were right to highlight the need for plots to be of sufficient size, but I think that it is perhaps unwise to assume that all allotment users wish to use them for the same reasons and for the same purpose. For example, some people use allotments purely as a hobby rather than as a means to feed a family. Furthermore, different areas will have varying local demands and differences regarding space available, as we heard in Fort William. The point that I am trying to underline is that a balance must be struck here. Allotment holders deserve a reasonably sized plot, but local authorities do need the flexibility to adapt to local circumstances and local demand. With that in mind, the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society, known as SAGS, as we have already heard, suggests that a particular size could be just a reference standard. It could be halved or quartered rather than an obligatory standard. That is worth detailed consideration. However, it remains sensible for local authorities to have the flexibility to offer plot sizes that are most suitable locally. The second point that I would like to make on allotments is that the interest of fairness, no supplier of grown produce should be expected through legislation from selling the produce locally in particular markets or shops. It is only fair that new producers are able to establish themselves without undue boundaries and local consumers should be able to buy and decide for themselves what they want. Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to return to what I see as one of the most important points to be made about the bill as it stands. I think that it lacks clear unambiguous definitions in many areas. I welcome the duty that the bill places on local authorities to establish and maintain a register of all property and assets held for them for the common good. This duty will, among other things, help to increase transparency. However, the definition of common good is not set out clearly, which may result in confusion during the bill's implementation, as well as opportunities for provisions for it to be either extended or avoided. Accordingly, I hope that today's debate shows a degree of agreement around some aspects of the bill, while pressing concerns remain over any other provisions. It is important that, with provisions regarding allotments, the correct balance is struck between protecting allotment holders' interests. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving the way. Does he agree that it is therefore crucial that we have some kind of financial estimates of the costs that could be incurred if we are serious about taking this bill forward and wanting it to work in local communities? Thank you. I think that it is absolutely essential that we need the costs, or else the bill just cannot proceed. We have not had the costs and are all other matters, so I think that it is essential. Anyway, I think that it is important that, with provisions regarding allotments, we strike a balance between protecting allotment holders' interests and allowing local authorities the flexibility that they need to operate efficiently. After all, community empowerment should be about allowing local decisions to be made locally. However, it is vital that clear definitions are provided for each aspect that remain ambiguous. Otherwise, the interpretation to reach this bill could be extended beyond its remit with controversial consequences. However, I would like to finish on a positive note by highlighting my sincere concern about the lack of financial information and reiterating my expectation that this omission will be rectified. Thank you very much. We now turn to the open debate speeches of Six Minutes. Please, Rob Gibson, to be followed by Sarah Boyack. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee considered part 4 of the bill, and we reported our views to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. Land reform is an on-going and complex process, and part 4 provisions of the bill address some of the issues on this agenda. Once amended, those provisions should resolve the identified shortcomings of the Land Reform Scotland 2003 act and achieve the aim to extend the community right to buy across Scotland. We welcome that. However, we agreed with some concerns about the drafting of the bill and about what is included and what is to be left needing regulation and guidance later on. I will come to that. Presiding Officer, the committee believes that the complexity of aspects within part 4 of the bill merit further explanation in the financial explanatory memoranda. Further consideration of the sustainable development and human rights could have facilitated a more constructive dialogue between landowners and communities. We understand that community right to buy will be demand-led, so the costs for communities, for landowners and for public bodies are unclear. The financial memorandum omits to monitor the cost implications of part 4 provisions closely and that the funding requirements will have to be kept under review, but it is as long as a piece of string. Stakeholders overwhelmingly support extending the community right to buy to the whole of Scotland. The Racky Committee agrees that we welcome the provisions in section 27 to do so. We also welcome the cabinet secretary's potential amendments at stage 2 to extend the list of eligible community bodies and recommend that communities benefit societies and community interest companies. We heard some suggest that the definition of community should include communities of interest as well as those of geographic place, for example in dispersed rural communities. However, the committee recognises the importance of communities being rooted in place and we are content with the definition in the bill. Registration of an interest in land was explored in great detail and as many communities only start to take an interest in land acquisition when land comes on the market, this is rightly so. Communities benefit from proactive engagement in community development and try to identify assets that they may need to deliver their objectives. In principle, we are supportive of the requirement to register an interest in land but re-registration processes must be simplified and should include the option to register for a purpose. Communities should have a right to register an interest and to be notified when land is coming on to the market or ownership is changing and that should trigger the process of registering a right of preemption, which is a new way forward. The process for late registration should reflect the practical reality for communities and should be redesigned to accommodate that. A presumption in favour of re-registration should be agreed unless there is some material change of circumstances. If the re-registration process is substantially simplified, a requirement to re-register every five years is appropriate. The committee agrees that mapping requirements for community right to buy are excessive. Communities need a simplified system to align the eligibility criteria with those in parts 2 and 3A of the 2003 act. The power to extend the community right to buy where there is no willing seller should be a power of last resort. That power could play a key role to hasten negotiation. We are concerned that that new right, as is currently drafted, may be almost impossible to exercise. Too many obstacles and opportunities for avoidance on the part of landowners occur to us. Why restrict the definition of eligible land to that which is considered to be wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected? The committee believes that the draft bill may fail to further sustainable development. Why is the definition needed at all, as the parallel tests for crofting land purchases do not require that? Most committee members support tests of furthering sustainable development and of being in the public interest, which meets the requirements. The majority of the committee recommended that the Scottish Government consider a definition that avoids the wider circumstances that are barriers to sustainable development and looks forward to the minister providing guidelines before stage 2. If no unambiguous and acceptable definition of abandoned or neglected land appears on the face of the bill, avoiding the existing label concept of abandoned land, the committee will ask the Scottish Government to remove the term abandoned or neglected land. We think that it is an urban concept that is little place in rural land use. The difficulties faced by communities in seeking to exercise the right to buy propus to seek insurance that appropriate support and funding is available, but public sector bodies such as the Forestry Commission must be proactive so that we welcome the Scottish Government's proposal to establish a community land unit to provide support and advice, and that may help many communities to make progress. The committee understands that the Scottish Government intends to bring forward amendments at stage 2 to include provisions for the crofting community right to buy. We would have preferred the consultation on the crofting community right to buy to have been undertaken alongside the consultation on the existing part 4 provisions, and amendments to the crofting community right to buy have been included in the bill as introduced rather than introduced at stage 2. We made over 70 pages of report on part 4, which suggests that this is a huge bill with huge intent, and community empowerment is obviously central to all of our interests and to make it all the more effective. We hope that the Government will take on board this committee's views. There is strong support across the chamber for extending land reform to urban communities. Part of that process has to be learning from the lessons of the implementation of our historic land reform legislation in the early years of the Parliament. As we look at the principles and detail of the bill, it is important that we bear that in mind, because we have to make sure that the legislation that we pass as a Parliament is capable of working as intended and will be able to be used by communities. I think that there are key concerns. I want to thank the committees for their work. I have recently joined the Racky Committee, but I particularly want to thank the many stakeholders for the detailed work that they have done to put together their comments and enable us to process their concerns for stage 1. I want to put on record that in terms of land reform, Labour wants to work with those who want to be radical on the question of land reform, and we made it very clear a couple of years ago that we wanted to see new community rights to purchase land, even though there is not a willing seller. We are very pleased to see those ambitions in the bill, and we strongly support them in principle. For us, the key challenge is to make sure that those proposals are workable. We need more than the rhetoric of land reform. We need more than the rhetoric of being radical. The detail has got to match that rhetoric. I think that that has to remain a key challenge as we move forward to stage 2, because the stakeholders who are listening to this debate today have given us the evidence that they do not believe that the proposals in the bill are sufficiently clear or workable as they stand. The proposals appear to give new rights with the one hand, but on the other, they may in fact render them impossible to exercise and practice because of the specific wording that is used. I think that the committee report makes that clear. That takes me to the central purpose of the bill and the question of land that is to be eligible for potential purchase, even though there is not a willing seller. The policy memorandum for the 2003 land reform act and for this part of the bill makes it clear that the policy purpose of this part is to further sustainable development and to remove barriers to sustainable development. However, the bill is currently defined and puts in such impediments to sustainable development in terms of the land that is wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected. That seems to us to be both too narrow a definition and one that implies that what is under consideration is solely about the physical characteristics of the land. To us, sustainable development is about the physical and environmental matters, yes, but it is also about social and economic matters. Communities can be neglected when having regard to their social and economic development as well as in relation to any physical or environmental neglect. The bill has to be absolutely clear about that. The Scottish Government appears to be reluctant to do what the committee wants us to do by defining that on the face of the bill. Ironically, when we were debating that in the committee, it emerged that the Scottish Government was having further consultations about that problem on the very day that we were looking at the issue. We have not seen that outcome from those discussions and the reason that Claudia Beamish and I dissented from this one part of what is an extensive and very strong report was to signal how important this matter is to us to get resolved. We reserved the right to have this matter defined on the face of the bill, even if the committee was tempted to follow the Government's preferred route. I think that the reason that this is so important to us is that, if you look at paragraph 220, the part that I would say that we strongly support with the committee reserves the right to take evidence on this issue at stage 2. I do not know if the environment minister will be speaking today. I am glad that he is here to hear the evidence. If you look at our report, the Law Society, the Scottish Land and Estate, Community Land Scotland, the Church of Scotland, respected organisations have looked at the detail of the bill and have strong criticisms about how it might be implemented. We think that there has to be a clear definition. If it is not done, we have been given fair warning by stakeholders that in any court challenge there is a real danger that a court may decide that when considering the prescribed matters, the linkage between the concepts is not sufficiently warranted or reasonably envisaged by the statutory provisions or with stretching the normal interpretation of the primary test, i.e. the definition in the dictionary of the words abandoned and neglected on the face of the bill, we have been warned clearly about the dangers of the current approach. We are in danger in this legislation of giving a new and powerful right with one hand but removing it in practice, because the detailed words in the bill are wrong. There is another trap in the bill and that is the clause that requires ministers to be satisfied that if the current owner of the land was to remain the owner, that it would be inconsistent with sustainable development. That is something that we have been shown in evidence that would be impossible to demonstrate and could automatically mean that any community application would be bound to be refused. That is why the committee wants this clause deleted. This is a hugely important legislation and we share the ambitions that communities have for the sustainable use of their land. We need to make sure that those communities can exercise that power. The bill that is currently drafted does not do that. As our convener Rob Gibson said, the devil is in the detail and we do not know yet when the ministers will be responding to our committees. That is absolutely crucial. We have a very short timescale. We will be taking extra evidence on the community right to buy in just a couple of weeks' time and we are scheduled in a month's time to be looking at this in detail for stage 2. We very much need information from Scottish ministers and we need that in detail so very much we would like to know in the minister's when we will get that information because we will want to go back to the stakeholders and look at the details that are coming forward from the Scottish ministers as we decide on which amendments we think are appropriate to put forward and also to scrutinise those amendments that the Scottish Government itself may bring forward. The bill is hugely important and I am concerned about our timescales. If we do not get the detail right, the bill will not do what we all want it to do and that cannot be allowed to happen. I now call on Michael Russell to be followed by Tavish Scott. Presiding Officer, this is a very welcome bill and it is useful to state at the outset, as the minister did, that this is about mindsets more than minutiae. We cannot empower communities by fiat. Communities need to take power to themselves. Mr Russell, could you check your microphone? I was just hiding away. The job of legislators is to create the framework to allow this to happen, to encourage those who want it to happen, to remove the barriers to it happening and to ensure that those who do not want it to happen are not successful in their aim. I am going to touch on all those issues in a moment, but I want very briefly to make three other points at the start of what I say. The first is that, while the word sustainability is on everybody's lips, there is no practical assistance to communities and others who want to understand what that means for their buy-out. It should be possible, for example, to give SNH some sort of statutory duty to help and advise those who are taking on assets about how they manage them sustainably. I also want to agree with the definitions that have come from Rob Gibson and Sarah Boyack regarding the difficulty of the words wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected. They need to be defined on the face of the bill. I think that all of us regret that that has not happened yet. If it is not done at stage two, then the words will have to be removed because they will present an enormous barrier to successful operation of the bill. Consideration also needs to refer on the face of the bill for ministers to require to have regard to the international convention on economic, social and cultural rights when determining an application. Ministers already have bound to have regard to ECHR. It is important that we recognise the wider human rights considerations that land reform presents. Finally, as we are all born again diggers, can I refer to the allotment issue and make it clear that I think that there are very clear, very simple requests from the allotment owners, the Scottish Allotment and Garden Society particularly. They want the definition of a standard plot. They want a public sector duty. Those are reasonable demands and they all contribute to the health, environmental and food policies of the Scottish Government. However, the biggest issue for me in this bill and for many is the transfer of assets to local communities. In that regard, the task that I have outlined to create the framework to stimulate the demand to remove the barriers and to ensure that those against do not succeed is very clear. It needs to be judged against two things—the present legislation that exists in community buy-out and the actual practice for those who try to buy property. I want to use an example that will not surprise people in this chamber from my constituency—the example of the proposed buy-out of Castle Tower. Castle Tower is a large, decaying mansion house that is set in Parkland. It overlooks the clod that was built in 1820 by Kirkton Finlay, the Lord Provost of Glasgow and the MP for Glasgow. It was owned by the Coates family during the Second World War. It was commissioned as HMS Brontosaurus. Perhaps that is rather appropriate considering the dinosaur-like attitude of our garland butte council. It was a training centre for D-Day landings. It passed to the Coates of Glasgow in 1948, where it became a celebrated outdoor centre. It passed to our garland butte council at no cost at local government reorganisation. It had a tenant up until 2013, with a very poor relationship with the council. The community tried to buy it and failed in 2011. There was a commercial bid that failed in 2013. The second community purchase is now on-going. The bid is backed by the overwhelming majority of the community. It has been backed in a ballot. It has the maximum funding from the Scottish Land Fund. It is supported by Harlan Sinai and his Enterprise. The Scottish Government has been very helpful via the cabinet secretary just last week. Up to 100 jobs could be secured. An anchor tenant is in existence. New valuation that the community has now supports the purchase price offer of £850,000. The community is desperate to get hold of the asset, but, for some reason, the council will not sell it. There is even a £10,000 signature petition that is demanding that the council sells, but it makes no difference. Shemeras, such as state aids and difficulties with the business plan, have come and gone. There still remains an intransigence. Indeed, it is worse than an intransigence, but there is a pretense that, in some way, the council does want to sell. An offer of a million-pound loan has been made to the community, although the business plan shows that that cannot be supported. The council has even said to the community that it should just take the loan, default on it and hand the property back in three years' time, what you would describe as more cwzanostra than Costa Clyde, but the reality is that this building remains in the possession of the council. If it was a private individual that was involved, we would pillory them the length and breadth of Scotland. That type of poor landlordism is not unique in Scotland. It is not even unique among local authorities. There is a public mindset—the word that the minister used—that property is retained by the public sector and very rarely given access to by anybody else. In Argyll and Bute, that is particularly true. This morning, I spoke to McLeod Construction, a big building firm in Argyll, who is desperate to build a factory unit in Loch Gilpedd, and the community wishes to have part of that land for community use. They are also being obstructed by the local authority. Again and again, there are examples across my constituency of extraordinary poor stewardship of public assets, which the community cannot get hold of. When we apply the tests that I have outlined, we find that the legislation is not doing enough to force the issue. Certainly, there is a framework that exists, but it is not working well enough, so the legislation can change that. In many areas, demand is growing all the time, but there are still too many barriers that local authorities and public agencies can put in the way of communities, and there are still far too many ways in which bodies can obstruct community purchase. Whether that be, Presiding Officer, and I am just coming to a conclusion in South Cowell, where, in one community, the local community council wanted to buy the local toilet from Argyll and Bute Council, we are told that that would be no problem. It would cost £30,000 and take a year to process. In Oban, where Rockfield School is for sale and where the community wants to set up an arts centre, or in Loch Gilpedd, as I have said, all through Argyll, all through Scotland, communities want to buy assets, they want to use assets and they would use them better than those of us who stand as stewards of them, including the council. The demand now is to get this legislation right so that that can happen. That is the process of amendment that will be engaged on. I hope that the minister will be sympathetic to it. Thank you. Before we move on, can I advise the chamber that we are eating into what little extra time we had? Tavish Scott, to be followed by Mark McDonald. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Firstly, can I welcome the minister to this bill? I hope that he does not spend all of his next couple of years with his lawyers, but it certainly stands on today's proceedings that is reasonably likely. We support the bill from these benches that would be difficult to be against community empowerment, but I believe that many of the remarks that were made earlier in this debate, not least of which by Kevin Stewart in relation to the principle of trust, struck a reasonable tone about the best way to look at what is being sought from this proposed legislation. There are a couple of other important principles that have not been touched on so far. One of them is devolution within Scotland. I certainly know that the minister will not agree with that, but I would like to see a reversal of centralisation within Scotland and very much decentralisation within this country. We have spent an awful lot of time arguing about the principle of what should flow from one party and out of the kingdom to another, but it would be quite important at times in our deliberations to reflect on what more could be done around Scotland and in different communities, different areas, in different towns, villages and islands, if some of that happened as well. In the spirit of returning to that decentralised era when the member was a minister, does he support the return of ring fencing of funding in local government? I am just going to come on to the ring fencing that he has still got in place, because the idea that he has got rid of all the ring fencing is far from the truth. I am very grateful to him for raising that. I am going to come on to the other centralisations that he has voted for so convincingly over these last number of years. I am talking to taking a much more broad spirit than that, but if he wants to play the politics, then believe me, I will be all too happy to do that too. Can I just go back to the laudable objectives that are within this in encouraging local people to design, initiate and indeed decide on the kind of services they want and use the assets that Mike Russell was briefly mentioning there? I also think that there is a role that we should have in encouraging local government too. Mr Russell made a very strenuous and passionate case to the failures of the council in his era in respect of one particular project, and I am sure he is entirely justified in making that case. I do slightly worry at times when we are considering community empowerment that it would be occasionally important to recognise that local government can play a positive role in that as well. Far from believing that local government is a threat to Hollywood rule, it now appears to be the view on some of the nationalist benches, I believe that we should take a rather more positive approach to that. I have also seen some of the submissions that we have had that the same could be applied to community councils as well. It is a bit taken aback by reading the committee evidence on the minister's remarks in respect of community councils. The Government minister rightly asked for ideas and proposals. One of the ways in which very strongly I believe that we could empower communities is by giving more local government financial responsibility at a local level. That is not just about participative budgeting. There are many submissions that talk about that, and I think that they talk very strongly and persuasively of that. Also about local government finance, the minister is blessed with a majority in this Parliament. He could perform local government finance. He could introduce local income tax. He will have no impediment from those sides on that. Indeed, he would have our support. More to the point, he has the numbers to get it through. Sadly, that is going nowhere at the moment. It appears to be utterly lost in the long grass of the Government's thinking. There is an invitation to the Liberal Democrats to nominate a member to join the commission on local tax reform. Perhaps, if you return the letter, we can get on with creating that commission. You could pass legislation to introduce local income tax, because that is the policy that you and I thought believed in Markle. Why not just get on and do it rather than set up the commission? If Mr Brody wants to intervene, I will happily take his intervention, but if he is not going to say anything, why does not he just stay there? The point that we really need to tackle in Scotland is to reverse that centralisation. Now, if that bill begins to do that, that would be very welcome indeed, because there have been many changes that we have seen over the past seven years that have been far from empowering communities. They have taken powers away from communities. The minister said in his opening remarks that I agreed with him that communities around the table when decisions affecting them are taken must be around the table when decisions affecting them are taken. I entirely endorse that sentiment and, indeed, that principled approach, but that would also apply to police, to fire, to the courts' closing, to other closures that we have seen over the past number of years, where communities were very much ignored by this Government in respect of their views on those subjects. I could take a number of other examples, but it just seems to me that if we are going to move forward in this area, there needs to be a little understanding from the Government that the one-size-fits-all approach that tends to come from Edinburgh doesn't mean flexible and responsible local services or local assets being used in the right kind of way, and that needs to change. I also want to reflect what I thought had been a series of particularly helpful submissions from different organisations for two days' debate, not least of which the SCVO, who say to members in their contribution that successful community empowerment cannot be driven by a top-down approach. It must be encouraged to develop from the grassroots up. A sentiment, I'm sure most of us would very strongly agree with. Scottish Community Alliance has already been mentioned, who also have noted that the Bill is a missed opportunity to address at least some of the long-standing challenges faced by the country's most localised tier of democracy community councils. I would commend that approach to the Minister and hope he might give that some further thought. From voluntary action Scotland, who noted that the Bill does not go far enough to force this joint working between statutory bodies. It strikes me that I hope the Minister might accept that there's a lot to do. Can I just finish with the point that Rob Gibson very rightly made about the stage 2 amendments that the Government plans to bring forward on crofting community right to buy? We made the same concerns on that on the aquaculture bill just a year or so ago. Mr Gibson very fairly made that point, as did Mr Ferguson, and I seem to recall Ms Bumich on the Labour side. I do hope that the Government is not going to make the same mistake as they made on that, which was to introduce big, big stage 2 amendments without any consultation. That's a parliamentary point for you, as much as for anyone else. Can I now ask members to keep within their six minutes, please? Matt McDonald, to be followed by Bob Dorris. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was a member of the local government and regeneration committee throughout the duration of this legislation being considered. Although I had left the committee before it considered the stage 1 report, and having looked at the weighty tome that was produced, I have a feeling that I may have made a lucky escape at that point. However, I pay tribute to the clerks on the committee who I think did a fantastic job during the consideration of the legislation in supporting the committee's work and ensuring that we were able to hear from a wide range of interested parties, be they local authorities or other public bodies, and most importantly, from community groups and organisations both here and Edinburgh, but also crucially out there in the communities. I have been enthusiastic about the potential of the legislation for some time, and I remain so. I want to cover a couple of the areas that are contained in the legislation, because obviously there are a lot of sections, and some of my colleagues have covered in detail some of the other areas, but there are some areas that I think are ones that I focused in on during my consideration of the legislation, so I want to maybe flesh those out a little bit just now. In terms of participation requests, I think that those are extremely important. The reason is because what I see all too often is an approach to service delivery, which is designed from the top down rather than from the bottom up, and while we are seeing some improvement from local authorities in terms of how they consult with communities, whether that is in terms of the design of services or the delivery of services or in terms of the formation of the local authorities budget. When I arrived in local government in 2007, the budget process was essentially a closed shop process. You received your budget papers a couple of weeks before the budget as a backbench member, and communities themselves had very little input into how that budget itself was formed. At Aberdeen City Council, we took the approach of reforming that so that the budgeting process, the public face of the budgeting process started much earlier, and that allowed for much more community feed-in, much more community involvement. I see participation requests as an opportunity for that kind of approach to be taken, not just in terms of how local authorities establish their budgets but also how they design and deliver services—meaningful involvement of communities rather than tick-box consultation exercises, which all too often is the complaint that we as politicians hear. In terms of asset transfers, I think that my colleague Mike Russell will make a very passionate case for some of the issues that are affecting his local community. I think that he highlighted very importantly that there can be blockages all too often that come into being. I have seen that in my constituency myself. There are good examples out there of where communities and community organisations have taken on assets or land from local authorities or other bodies and delivered real opportunities and are doing good work in communities. I can think, for example, of the DICE development and amenities committee in my constituency, which operates the old Carnegie library or the Carnegie hall, as it is called, in DICE, where a range of community groups have access and are able to use that facility or the use of the community garden and the provision that it has led to in terms of green space and an opportunity for many in the community to enjoy that area. However, just a couple of miles down the road in the community of Buxburn, there has been a long-standing and protracted attempt to try and gain access to green space next to the Cloverleaf pub called the Cloverfield Park area, which was a piece of land that was transferred to the local authority in exchange for green space that was taken up during the development of the new secondary school. The land requires work. There is an interest from within the community to develop it as a community garden or community green space area, because there is a recognition that there is a lack of green space within the community that can be utilised by the people of Buxburn. However, in order to try and advance that, it has proven extremely difficult to get the local authority to come to the table and have meaningful discussion and dialogue with the community about that. It looks like, as a result of associated housing development, there may be an opportunity for that land to be developed, but it has taken far too long for what ought to have been a very simple process. Another example recently is that of Victoria road school, which does not sit in my constituency, but sits in Moray Mawr's constituency. The former primary school in the community of Torrey, which the community itself wanted to take on and operate for the benefit of the wider community, but the council rejected that approach and have elected instead to demolish that building. That is an unfortunate step to have been taken. It flies in the face of what we are trying to achieve through the legislation of allowing communities to have a much greater ownership of what goes on in their area. I recognise the importance of allotments. There are a number of allotment plots within my constituency. One thing that I would highlight, and it was highlighted during discussions at committee, is that, although there is a requirement on the local authority, we should also remember that there are many other public bodies and organisations out there who have land that could be suitable for the establishment and creation of allotments. I will ask the minister if that is something that he is reflecting on as he looks to how the legislation could perhaps be amended at stage 2. Presiding Officer, I am glad to be following Mark MacDonald, because I felt for a while as important as the debate has been. It was speaking abstract, speaking in technical, not really making it real to the communities that we all represent. That is what I would like to seek to do this afternoon. A few months ago, I led a debate in this Parliament seeking to help boost community-led regeneration in Royston. Royston, or the garden guard, as most locals would call it in the area, does not have its challenges to seek. However, it also has many inspiring individuals and organisations who, on a daily basis, make a real difference to the lives of many, many people. Organisations such as local housing associations, blockhames, Spireview and Copperworks, groups such as Royston Youth Action and Rosemount Development Trust and individuals such as Charlie Lynn, Tilly and Liz McElroy and John Royston, champion community empowerment in all that they do on a daily basis. There are many more groups and individuals who do so much in the garden guard and I apologise that I obviously cannot mention them all. However, I firmly believe that, had this community empowerment bill became law several years ago, that community could have benefited greatly. The test of the legislation before us today at stage 1 is that it has to still be able to make a significant difference to that community and others that I represent. I am privileged to have worked with key community stakeholders and, on a cross-party basis, to help to develop a community regeneration strategy, yet a forum up and running in relation to that. My thanks, in particular, to Rosemount Development Trust and to Kevin Murray Associates, who have now brought us to a stage of having that fully fledged community-consulted, community-led, community-designed regeneration strategy. Whether it is a plan for a sports hub in greater sporting facilities or greater connectivity with other areas or better shopping facilities, particularly around Royston hill, whether it is bringing healthcare into the community, whether it is a variety of local amenities, whether it is improved recreation and meeting space, or a better housing provision and mix that all has to tie together and the community has to lead that strategy. The issue that we have found is that there is a significant piece of land that sits in the middle of the community that, for many, many years, the community has had no control over. That land was so to a group called Focus Urban several years ago. It had given commitments to put affordable housing on that land. It never came to the hill of beans, quite frankly. It could be argued that the local authority at the time did not have a joined-up approach to whether or not that was the best place to build houses in the first place. In recent months, that company went bankrupt and that land was to be disposed of by the Bank of Ireland, who had control over that situation. Political representatives, community stakeholders, we all made strenuous efforts to get in contact to see if the community could get control over that land—a key piece of land—in order to bring about a fully-fledged, bigger picture regeneration of the wider local community. However, to no joy, I am afraid to say, the land was sold to an offshore company. That does not matter whether it is an offshore company, whether it is a domestic private concern or indeed a local public authority interest. The bottom line, Presiding Officer, is that the community has a plan for Royston, for the garden-gad. We will push forward that plan as best we can, but how much better it could have been if we had control over all the community assets. Much of the talk here this afternoon has been about what abandoned land, what the terminology for that will be, what neglected land looks like. I concur with some of the comments to say that if it is not part of a sustainable community regeneration strategy and the asset is lying fallow, that is neglected. It has to fit into the bigger picture of wider public interest and public communication in the area for what the people of the garden-gad want. I have to say to the minister that, if he wants to see what a living, breathing, community empowerment bill will look like in action, he will come to the garden-gad and see for himself and see what we have done and come to the land that we no longer have control of in our community. I urge him to take up that invite with me. I say, our community, I do not stay in the garden-gad, I stay in an area called Somersden. In closing, I would like to speak about a community asset in Somersden. Do not worry, I will not invite you to this one, but I will make you certainly aware of it. There are very few community facilities in Somersden that has grown exponentially in recent years. I stay in one of those new-build houses without community assets, particularly being brought into support. One community asset that was in Somersden was a facility that was a centre for adults with learning disabilities, a day centre. I will not rehearse the arguments over whether that day centre has stayed open or not. I was supportive of the retention of it, but it is a key community asset and a key community location that is sitting boarded up and empty and now being vandalised and going to rack and ruin because of a lacked joined up strategy. If only this bill had to become an act and made a reality to marshalling the many community views, which is that site, that building, it could have been the heart of community regeneration in Somersden or back to the story that I told about Royston. I hope that you will come and see that for yourself, minister. That will be an achievement for this bill. I appreciate my colleagues and their technical aspects in relation to how we have to improve this bill, but at the end of the day, it has to do with what it says in the tin for the communities that we will represent, and whether it is Royston, Somersden or Urban or Rural, we must make sure that it delivers. I am delighted to support that at stage 1, but if the bill needs to be improved, we should come together as a Parliament to do that. I am delighted to speak in this debate in the furtherance of a fairer distribution of land and assets throughout urban and rural Scotland. While ownership is only one way for communities to carve out a positive future, I am clear that land reform must continue to be the robust way forward in Scotland, and that the community empowerment bill makes a significant contribution to that. I intend to focus on part 4 of the bill, which was scrutinised by the Reiki Committee, as our convener Rob Gibson has highlighted, of which I am a member. I also want, like all those other born-again diggers, to make a quick reference to the allotments. As a member for South Scotland, I am keenly aware that the majority of community purchase in rural Scotland has been in the Highlands and Islands. Some argue that there isn't an interest in the rest of Scotland and in my own region of South Scotland. I strongly disagree with those who say this. There are examples of community success across the south, from Mull of Galloway Trust to Corhead Farm, owned by the Borders Forest Trust. With community interest and regeneration and sustainable development in the true sense of the word at their heart, and, of course, interests from groups such as in the village of Lead Hills for the future, it is essential, though, that the support is in place to enable communities to identify opportunities, build capacity and to understand how to take forward this process. Thus, the Scottish Government's commitments to new bodies such as the Community Land Fund are, as highlighted in the Land Reform Review Group's report, are fundamental to the way forward. It would also be helpful if the minister today could seek clarification from the Scottish Government as to whether it is considering any review of Scottish Enterprise's remit to enable the same sort of robust support that is offered by High. More specifically in regard to this bill, as a community activist and community councillor in the past, I have spent much time pondering the definition of community and not always come up with very clear definitions, quite frankly. It is a difficult issue, but the committee's support for Bencoms is an important step forward, and in the context of this bill on balance, I believe that our committee was right to rule out communities of interest and to keep the focus on communities of place. However, as stressed by Rob Gibson, rurality is an issue, and I continue to seek reassurance on this, and now from the minister and also from the Land Reform Minister in the context of this bill. Such groups, as, for instance, Strait and Coral Society, have members as far away as 20 miles and probably in the Highlands. There are communities with members even further away, so while we have moved away from the postcode issue, we need to really be careful as to whether we might need to, at stage 2, look at this again. Sarah Boyack has already focused on concerns about abandoned and neglected land definitions and on sustainable development, and I am not going to re-rehearse those. Rob Gibson has also highlighted the issues around registration, but there is one point on registration that I would like to highlight. Simplicity is the key to it all, and that said, though I am convinced that the committee has made the correct decision to recommend a re-registration time of five years, not ten. The reason for this being that so much can change in a community, especially if it is in the process of regeneration and more people are coming in and things can be quite fluid, and therefore I think that if things are simple, that five years should be acceptable. In this year of food and drink, I want to highlight the issue of allotments briefly, although it is not within part 4. I know that many members have an interest in ensuring that we have local accessible fresh food, and one aspect of this is the opportunity to grow your own, especially in the shameful days of food banks. No one can argue against the benefits that this can bring. An organic gardener, I can vouch for the sense of straightforward delight, which is incremental, and that commitment brings from the first spade cut to the taste of one's own perpetual spinach soup. Of course, the health benefits of digging your own are widely known as well, and the mental health benefits of being outside in the fresh air. Even though that air is pretty nippy at some of the times when one has to dig. In terms of allotments, to be really clear about this, there is also an opportunity for a sense of community, from sharing seeds to selling surplus together. In principle, I believe that anyone who wants to grow vegetables should have a little patch of earth to do this on, romantic though I may sound. We are a long way from this. In the view of SAGS, and I quote, the identity and the unique role of allotments has not been recognised, and all the diverse food-growing organisations and communities have been amalgamated into a homogenous unit. New models of devolved management and local allotment community control are just arising and should be part of a dialogue about the food-growing strategy. I respect the fact that the minister has said today that he will look at this again, but I would be concerned if this ended up going into the long grass because of the confusion that has developed. I do believe that, although it is only one small part of the bill, it is a very important part. Finally, I want to turn to human rights. This has already been touched on by our convener, Rob Gibson. In part 4, section 48, is a vital part of changing the nature of discussion between communities and land owners. There is a prize now to be won, credible and tough backstop powers, when needed, but in the shadow of which I know we all hope that constructive dialogue and debate towards more voluntary purchase of land can take place. I also hope that, during stage 2, we are able to take further debate about human rights aspects of all this. For too long, human rights have only been referred to by reference to owners' rights under ECHR, but there are many more human rights obligations under ECHR, and they are required to be brought to the forefront of our considerations to make sure that they are done in the best way possible during the bill. I would highlight the evidence of Professor Alan Miller, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which I found compelling in that regard. There are indeed concerns about the process and about how issues have been brought through so far, but I am an optimist and I believe that, if we work together, we will reach a fair conclusion for the bill and Labour will support the passage of the bill today. However, in its detail, there remains a great deal to be done, and I look forward to working with my committee colleagues to play our part in making sure that this is the best bill possible for the communities of Scotland. I suppose that, as an avowed devolutionist and a strong supporter of personal community and country independence, it is an inevitable expectation that I support this particular bill. Centralism and collectivism have no place in my personal lexicon. In general, I do support it, but I am not so blinded by it to imagine that our Governmental structures are perfect, or else why would I seek a wholly different change to the structure of the current national government of the islands? Continue to subscribe to my view that our local authorities and community groups are an integral part of an overall governance alongside our national government at Holyrood. I believe, however, that change is inevitable and I hold the view that political power at the end of the day is a bottoms up process and that we have an obligation to ensure that this particular bill embraces that objective. While the general intent of the bill is welcome, I consider that some of its objectives and tenets may need further review in its current construction, which I believe can be addressed. The Christie commission recommended that the bill should seek to strengthen communities' voices in shaping the services that affect them. That empowerment is, as the policy member and them to the bill states, empowerment is a core pillar of the human rights approach. In the course of the enactment, we have to ensure that we secure a greater engagement, a greater participation of communities over decisions that affect their lives so that they can determine what happens in building their community. While Christie was right on focusing on outcomes, I say outcomes, not targets, democratic involvement, democratic decision making and democratic engagement, at a community level it is currently, I believe, very poor, despite the laudable election turnout in Fife. In some areas, particularly in decisions affecting, for example, wind farms, it is perceived in a few isolated cases that objections or support allegedly come down to a very few elected or, indeed, some cases appointed individuals. I am sorry. They discuss community benefits and the like. My contention is that more emphasis has to go on local community democracy and ownership, and to avoid what the policy member and them states that communities might have difficulty in understanding the draft legislation of the bill or, as the local government and regeneration committee said in its report last February, it has stated that the current experience of community empowerment in action across Scotland is mixed. Democracy is a better understanding of the proposed legislation. I will focus on, and I repeat again, outcomes, not targets and continuous improvement, but above all, responsibility and accountability for communities are critical. The vehicle, I believe, to support this change, the change in core public service reforms rests with the current community planning process. Those partnerships are key conducts of change to full community empowerment. Yesterday, I met with the very senior representatives in Ayrshire of the Police and Fire Services, who play a key role, not just in managing their services but in helping to empower communities through the understanding of their objectives in their areas, but beyond through that planning process. Apart from the role of community partnership in and of the development of a local participative hierarchy, the transfer of public assets, land and buildings to communities, is paramount. Notwithstanding the challenge, and there will be challenges, and the need for appropriate fiscal management and recording, and the increased responsibility of communities to own and improve the utilisation of public capital assets, all of those, if done effectively, will stimulate, I believe, productive activity in the communities. The member mentioned wind farms. Does he agree that, in countries such as Germany and other countries in Europe, more than 50 per cent of wind farms are controlled by community and public ownership? Is that not something that we should be striving for in Scotland, working with all communities? We will find that, in any discussions that I have had on that particular subject, my main tenet has been community ownership. Protecting or improving local facilities can also lead, I believe, the profitable enterprise. It behoves local authorities to pursue landlords who forfeit care of their properties in some of their deplorable state, as the Presiding Officer will know in the case of the Bobby Jones building in Ayr. Transfer it to the communities for the purposes of community enterprise and income. There are two very brief points. On allotments, let us not be afraid to place an emphasis, a bias even to ensure that the allocation of new allotments go to young people in the community. I supported Bruce Crawford's case for the grandfather rights, but young people can be encouraged to get involved there. Lastly, let there be an encouragement of the social enterprise in third sectors, providing procured services in their communities through the public procurement exercise, not just to their own but to neighbouring communities. One of the, if not the, most significant bill in my opinion to come before this Parliament is this particular bill. I look forward to its successful passage and amended enactment. John Wilson, to be followed by George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak in this debate and I draw members' attention to my register of interest, which I currently serve as the chair of a community organisation that is in negotiation with the local authority regarding community asset transfer of a community centre in the village where I live in Glenbuig. That has been a lesson and endurance for many of the communities, because the first offer of the community centre was made seven years ago. Because of the hurdles put in place by other council departments, the community had to walk away at that time and were then re-offered for community transfer over a year ago. That highlighted many of the problems that are faced not just by the community in Glenbuig but by many communities throughout Scotland. The committee and its inquiry found in the evidence that we took, particularly from community representatives, that they were facing obstacles that were not real obstacles. Michael Russell made reference to the Castle Tower situation, in which a community had come up with plans and presented them to a local authority and were quite keen to take those plans forward, only to find that the local authority was the major stumbling block to those plans being taken forward. The issue for us as a committee, when we examined the whole concept of the bill as proposed by the Government, is one whereby we have to make sure that we get the legislation right. We need to make sure that all the partners in the community planning partnerships and others understand what we mean by community empowerment. We do not just mean community engagement, we mean real power being passed to communities for them to participate fully in the decision making and delivery of services within their own communities. For too many organisations to see communities as an obstacle in delivering what they think should be done to communities, not what communities require of what communities identify are their real needs. As I said, in the committee, we spent almost three years taking evidence on a number of issues. I pay tribute to the many community organisations that came forward and were quite candid in relation to the issues that they faced in many respects in taking forward what they wanted to see happening in their communities. The committee report highlights that there should be an explicit requirement on all community planning partners to include community capacity building in local plans and to report on progress along with setting out future plans in every annual report. We hope that the minister can take that on board and get that message out quite clearly to community planning partners as well as local authorities and other agencies that we are looking for real engagement, real empowerment of those communities. For myself, the issue of community partnership and working with communities brought home to me the work that I did in Casamill in 1988 when the new life for urban Scotland was introduced in four regions in Scotland. We found that the community partnership was very much a community partnership of agencies not engaging with the communities themselves. I hope that this piece of legislation, as it goes through minister, will see a real sea change in the attitudes of many of the officials that are out there at the present moment. Claudia Beamish made reference to Scottish Enterprise and others to Scottish Enterprise. I, too, would like to see Scottish Enterprise's remit being adjusted slightly to include the social element similar to that of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has shown us clearly what it can do working with communities throughout the Highlands and Islands. That, if replicated in the central bell, would be a major benefit for many communities to not only engage in social aspects but to engage in economic aspects that those communities want to engage in. The other issue that I wish to raise is the issue about the registration of community organisations. In the initial bill, the minister has highlighted the issue of skills. Of course, for many people, we might not know what a skill is—the Scottish Incorporated Charitable Organization—and there is a number that has been attached to those skills. I would like the minister to seriously consider reducing the number from 20 to a lower number or to a number that is appropriate for those organisations. When we talk about community empowerment, we are not just talking about geographical communities. We are also talking about communities of interest, and some of those communities of interest may be smaller than the requirement that is placed in the bill at the present moment. I look forward to the response from the Government and the amendments at stage 2. I hope that we end up with a piece of legislation that can take forward Scotland and its communities together. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Although I am not on the committee, I was there to welcome everyone when they came to Paisley to see what was happening with the communities in the town. It is very interesting to see the varied groups and what was in offer and the kind of work that they are trying to do, because there are many challenges in our community. However, the community empowerment bill is absolutely no surprise to me that my colleague and friend Derek Mackay was the minister when we first started talking about it, because he saw the challenges that towns and communities like Paisley have. He could see that a bill like this could empower people locally to make that difference. However, one of the major issues that we have is how do we deal with buildings that may fall into disuse because of a change of a public service? That is obviously something that happens throughout the country and is an issue, because recently we have had the Russell Institute in Paisley, which was a building that was used for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. It changed the service and moved on. As a local MSP, when Paisley Development Trust came to me looking for a project for the future, they asked what could they do. I said that this is a perfect building to look to try and get access to it and make it use again back into the community now. After a very long time and the difficulties that everyone else has mentioned when it is for community groups to get involved in these types of projects, SDS will be moving into that building as it is working from that building. That shows you what you can do, but they were lucky because they had the support and had to work through that programme. Other groups are not so lucky, and we have to make sure that we can actually use this bill to ensure that we can make that difference and get those assets back online. However, we also have another selection of very large places of worship in Paisley that no longer has the congregations to sustain the building themselves. How do we deal with those buildings? Some of them are of Paisley significance, some of them are national significance of Paisley Abbey, and we have to see in the future how we deal with that, because no longer can those buildings be sustained by the organisations that currently run them, and they are of importance to the local community. We also welcome £10 million that the First Minister announced in her programme for government on the new Empowering Communities Fund, because that will allow community groups to get to the finance to try and develop those types of programmes. One of the very interesting projects that is happening in my area is from a local businessman called Gary Kerr. Gary has a very similar view on Paisley as I have. He is very committed and ambitious for the town. He sees that there are some buildings that we could be using that have been left to be used from our previous use. One of the things that he has set up is Paisley 2021 community trust, and it is working towards community cinema and theatre. The project would be perfect to work with the community empowerment bill once it is through, because it gives it an opportunity because it is a difficulty going through the various red tape of local government. Local government, let us not kid ourselves, can make things very difficult for community groups, not by design, not all the time by design, but they can make it difficult for groups to get through those types of things. Their idea is to have a community-based theatre and cinema in the town, because there is a demographic of older people who do not want to go to the multiplexes in various parts of the area. They want to go to something that is more traditional than what they regard as cinema. However, that brings me to some of the other things when you are dealing with some of the historic buildings in the area. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations mentioned that they support the transfer of assets to communities, provided that the community has an active desire to take ownership of them. That happens quite a lot when you are dealing with local authorities, because their idea—a lot of the time, and as a former councillor, I can tell you this—of community engagement and community involvement in those types of things is to try to enforce a community to take a building that they no longer wish to use or have. They think that they just want to get off the balance sheet and that it is a small part of the budget itself. That is not the way to do things. That is what SCVO is saying when it comes to this situation. We have to make sure that the communities are empowered in such a way that they can take on board all those issues and work with the buildings and the type of services that they want. However, one of the other things that I want to discuss is that, during my time as a councillor, I became involved in the Remshire access panel. I think that it was mainly because people said that their wife was a wheelchair user, so therefore you will know what an access panel was. However, being the type of person that I am, I got involved and started working with them. I think that it is important that we acknowledge the work that access panels do throughout Scotland in trying to engage disabled people from all types of different disabilities, trying to engage with local authorities and give something back. In my area, the Remshire access panel is working with Glasgow airport to make sure that, when people who have disabilities are going on holidays, there is a process for them to be able to get on the planes and back and forward within the campus with no problems. In other areas, there is an Inverness access panel that has been working with NHS Scotland on improvements to Wraigmore hospital. There are also other areas where people are working to make sure that projects are fully accessible when you are dealing with a new project, such as a capital project, such as a town hall refurbishment or a new school. Things like that are extremely—I have just finished, but I have only got up to 20 seconds. Things like that are extremely important. When we are dealing with this, we have to remember that Scotland's people are our greatest asset, and our communities want to make a difference in that area. I believe that this bill can empower them, and we have to make sure that we make it work. I congratulate the local government committee on what is an outstanding report, and also the finance committee. I think that it makes a very important point in emphasising the breach of standing orders and the lack of financial estimates, which Alex Rowley pointed out could become an obstacle to implementation of the bill. As Alex Rowley said, for labour, we support the principles of the bill, but I believe that it requires greater clarity and more teeth. I would say that there is more explicit abandoning of a top-down approach for one based on co-production that empowers local communities. That needs to be reflected, in the first instance, in section 2. I certainly welcome the fact that community planning partnerships at last are going to have statutory underpinning. They have been around with us for a long time. I do not actually know where they started, but I was certainly talking about community planning when I was local government minister in 1997. As community planning developed, I was worried about the extent to which it was becoming a top-down process. I think that the committee is absolutely right when they say that the Government needs to be more prescriptive in relation to local involvement in order to ensure the necessary paradigm shift from a top-down approach. That is a loose quote from the committee's recommendations. I welcome the fact that the national standards for community engagement are going to be put into legislation. I am reminded that I launched them 10 years ago, but I think that they have improved since then. That is not going to be enough. The final point that I would make in relation to section 2 is that we need to listen to what voluntary action Scotland is saying about more involvement of the third sector. On part 3, I agree that there is too much prescription about participatory bodies requiring a written constitution, so I hope that the Government will accept that recommendation from the committee. I am also disappointed that although the definition of participatory bodies includes community councils, there is little in the bill that reinforces the importance of community councils. Later today I will be going to West Pilton and West Grant and community councils, one of several excellent community councils in my constituency, which is probably why I have a particularly positive view of them. I expect that they will be asking me about the bill and how it went today, because they have been very interested in that particular community council in the progress of the community empowerment bill. In fact, some members of that community council have been particularly interested in section 5 on asset transfer. I think that they contacted and possibly even had a meeting with Mark of Beagie about that. I am going to have a meeting with some of them, with some regeneration officials later in three or four weeks' time. The issue is that, when a community group wishes to acquire some public land, they hope that the bill will make a difference, but I suppose that my fundamental question in relation to part 5 of the bill is what happens if the local authority just says no. I think that the fear is that it will not make any difference if a public body is determined to realise the highest possible receipt from selling off the land. There is also an issue in part 6 in common good land that there is no clarity in the bill about if or how local authorities could dispose of common good land through asset transfers. In fact, there is a lot of questions about section 6 in general. Although everyone has welcomed the transparency of registers of common good land, there is still a lack of clarity about the statutory definition. I am trying to get through all the bills in the short time available. The right to buy land will be substantially extended. I am sure that that is widely welcomed, and I particularly welcome the compulsory right to buy, which gives communities the right to acquire land without it being put on the market. However, the rural affairs committee here did some sterling work in pointing out some of the problems around the definition of abandoned and neglected land. Apart from anything else, that is a bit of a legal quagmire, and I am sure that the Government will look very carefully at the recommendations from the rural affairs committee that they should consider a definition that relates to wider circumstances, which can be a barrier to sustainable development. Section 7 is on allotments. Clearly, as Alex Rowley said, we need further discussion with the Scottish Allotment and Garden Society, and we need to link the work on allotments with food in particular and health and wellbeing more generally. Section 8 on non-domestic rates relief is obviously linked to some of the financial concerns that I mentioned at the beginning. Section 1 is broadly welcome, not least as a member of the finance committee, because we have been emphasising the importance of outcomes and outcome-based budgeting for a long time. I would like to conclude with a quote from the commission on strengthening local democracy, because it published effective democracy reconnecting with communities last year. I think that that is important for wider devolution arguments as well. They say that Scotland cannot deliver on improved democratic participation without radical new thinking. There now appears to be agreement that Scotland should have a step substantially more pause, but simply repositioning control nationally in Edinburgh or London will not tackle the complex opportunities and challenges that communities face. The shift needs to be decisive and far-reaching, not a trickle of power to councils then to communities all controlled from above. I think that above in that context could refer to councils as well as to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. We need genuine power into local communities at a local level. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The problem with speaking this far into debate is that you tend to find that most of the bases have been covered by the time you are able to contribute to it, but so wide-ranging was the rule of fair committees contribution to the stage 1 report. There are some angles that will still be visited or worthy of being expanded upon, and I will focus my contribution on those. As we have heard, the major issue with the bill from our committee's perspective is the issue of abandoning neglected land and the need for an unambiguous definition of those terms, but there were several other areas covered by our report, which, although less significant, were nevertheless important. Firstly, human rights. There is a lack of detail in the policy memorandum in human rights, however, from the evidence that we took, an interesting perspective on the role human rights plays in community purchase as the land or property did emerge. As Claudia Beamish touched on, the committee understands that ECHR does not mean private ownership must be protected in all circumstances. A landowner can be required to seed ownership when it is in the public interest, while still ensuring that no human rights are breached. Professor Alan Miller, the chair of the Human Rights Commission and a thought-provoking piece of evidence giving made the point that we need to concentrate on the wider human rights aspects of the legislation. I would have to agree with him. Professor Miller explained that the community right to buy does not exist in order for the community to purchase a property or land for the sake of it. It needs to be in the public interest and is therefore a qualified right to buy. As he observed, if human rights is seen in the wider context, there will be a realisation that it drives us not towards courts and lawyers but towards having an environment in which there is more constructive dialogue between landowners and communities. Cabinet Secretary Richard Lochhead acknowledged to the committee that we must have it at the forefront of our mind the rights of communities and the wider public interest, as much as the rights of landowners and property owners. I wonder if the minister could outline therefore in closing how the Government has reflected on Professor Miller's points as the Cabinet Secretary undertook would be done. The committee also examined membership numbers in the make-up of a community. We took a good deal of evidence on the registration process and the requirements in order to register. The committee expressed considerable concern over the minimum number of members required of Scottish-incorporated charitable organisations. If skeos are to have no fewer than 20 members as the bill proposes, then the reality is that a number of current skeos will not be able to register a community interest in land, as it would not be an eligible community body. There are communities small and large across Scotland, and as such there will be times when a well-functioning skeo has less than 20 members. The committee heard of examples and inverquide where skeos of eight and 10 members are working extremely well. It seems, as John Wilson alluded to, that the requirement is unnecessarily prescriptive. The requirement to register was another area of the rule of affairs committee cover, much of the evidence that we heard called for a simplification of the registration process. However, there was also much discussion over the requirement to register in relation to communities reacting to land becoming available rather than being proactive in that registration. While I can understand that communities are, and less prompted, perhaps more likely to be reactive and proactive in that regard, I think that registration would greatly encourage the latter and therefore lead to possibly more considered decisions to acquire property or land for the community. However, that is not to say that the registration should be conducted as outlined currently in the bill. The committee felt that a simplified registration process would not only encourage a proactive approach from communities but would also ensure that those communities can empower themselves rather than become caught up in a lengthy and complex process. If we are to entice as many communities as possible into that, we need to be mindful that expertise and capacity is likely to be less pronounced among the west affluent. Re-registration was a further area that we looked at in some detail, as we have heard the bill outlines a need for re-registration after five years, with the same potentially complex process needed to be gone through again. Many stakeholders have concerns over both the timeframe and the need for the same process to be completed for a second time. There does seem a more straightforward answer to all this, as outlined in our report, which is to stick with the five-year timeframe as proposed in the bill, but with a simplified process that weans towards presumption in favour of re-registration. If we were to retain the provisions relating to abandoned and neglected land, and I share other committee members' concerns over this unless clear and unambiguous definitions come forward, we require some clarity in a number of areas, namely whether those provisions would apply only to those parts of a landholding that were considered to be wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected or to the entire landholding. What happens is that a tenant, rather than a landowner, is responsible for a lack of activity or poor manage. Will there be an exclusion for land that is being utilised for recognised conservation and environmental purposes, i.e. natural regeneration for biodiversity or flood prevention purposes? I think that there is unanimity across this chamber, indeed across Scotland, in support of the policy intent of the bill. There are differences of opinion on how best and practical terms to best deliver on that intent. We are, as one, on the potential for good that the legislation has, and I think that I resolved to work towards making the community empowerment bill. As the minister said in opening, the best bill it can be. I now call on Alison Johnstone to be followed by Willie Coffey, the generous six-minute. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you. I'd like to thank those who have contributed to getting the bill to this stage. Although I would have liked to have seen a braver bill, there is still time to make it so, and there is still much in it that Greens can welcome, and we will, of course, be voting in favour of the principles this afternoon. People from many different groups and communities had big expectations for this legislation, and today I want to concentrate on empowering the community of football fans who want to buy their football clubs. As a first step, we welcome the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee's recommendation that the list of eligible bodies be expanded to include community benefit societies and community interest companies. That is an important foundation for fan ownership, given the way so many fans' trusts are organised. However, a proper fans' right to buy, the bill as it stands brings us no nearer to it, and I therefore intend to bring amendments on that issue. I'd like to address a number of key questions, and I urge the minister on closing to agree to look again at what the Scottish Government can do for football fans in this area. Is there a serious problem with the way Scottish football is currently owned and run? I'm sure that members would agree that there is, even those who don't support hearts, Rangers, Dunfermlyn, Dunfermlyn Athletic, Livingston or Gretna. Of course, not all privately owned clubs are operated irresponsibly, but when they are and when they go into administration or are traded like any other asset, fans are still all too often shot out of the process. We should also have a clear process to ensure that there's a clear exit strategy for responsible owners who decide for whatever reason to call time on their period as custodian off a club. However, wasn't there just a review into this, which decided not to make the case for fan ownership? Well, no, Stephen Morrow is a great expert, but as his report says, the desirability or otherwise of supporter ownership wasn't discussed within the working group, which is a shame, but that's the remit given to them by ministers. And can fan ownership really work? Well, the evidence from Scotland and around the world is that it can, and members across this chamber appear to agree. I know that Kenny MacAskill is helping Hibbs fans as they try to take control of their club. Ian Murray has worked with Hearts, and I know that Bruce Crawford played a key role in the efforts of Stirling Albion fans to buy their club. Many other members will know their local fans trust's keen, smart, determined groups, with the club's best interests at heart. But wouldn't a right to buy drive out good owners of Scottish clubs? Hardly. If a club is thriving on and off the pitch, there won't be an appetite to change that, but good owners come and go, and when they go, fans should have first right of refusal to take over. Oh, but isn't this too radical? No, it isn't. Yes. In the case of, thank you for taking the intervention, in the case of one particular club that one might say is in trouble, I was asked to submit an idea, which I did, and then found that because they have seven supporters' trusts that couldn't agree with each other, there was no hope of it becoming a community-based soccer club. All groups of fans' trusts would have to be openly and democratically constituted, and ministers under advice would have to sign that off. If a small group passed that test, then, obviously, they would have to meet with the approval of the larger group of fans. But this isn't too radical. The Parliament itself, this Parliament, has decided that tens of thousands of acres should be available to communities to buy in this way. A brave piece of legislation, which the park case confirmed, was within European law. If large areas of Scotland's lands should be available to local people, clubs should be available to their fans. But is legislation necessary? What's stopping fans from just buying their clubs already? Well, as we have seen all too often in recent times, it takes a great deal of time to raise the money, and a period like those set out in this bill, where they're automatically the preferred bidder, would make it far more straightforward. The committee's report quotes the minister as saying, the driving force behind the bill is the view that we can unlock much of Scotland's potential through community empowerment. Of course, this is true. It's also true that we can unlock much of Scotland's football potential through fan empowerment in exactly the same way. We need to see fans as a community and football clubs as their assets. Before we consider this bill again, I would urge members to talk to their local fans and see what they think. If their club is being sold or worse, would they want the option of first refusal? My view is this. In 30 years time, Scottish football could be entirely transformed. We'll wonder why clubs were ever owned by anyone but their fans, and we may be enjoying a much stronger national game by then, too. I'd briefly like to talk about a couple of other areas, common good and participatory budgeting. The common good registers will increase consistency across local authorities, but we need more than simply a bare spreadsheet listing assets. Perhaps the bill could require councils to demonstrate how they've managed the assets on the register to meet best value and responsible stewardship. I'd also like to see a requirement to set out how councils have valued the assets and to publish a periodic plan on long-term management off the common good on behalf of the people. I'd also like to agree with the committee's recommendation for a timescale for completion of the register. Finally, the bill has been described by the Government as the biggest transfer of powers since devolution. Burial empowerment and decentralisation can only be achieved if financial power goes alongside new duties and rights. The minister spoke positively of the impact of participatory budgeting schemes. There was support for PB in the original bill consultation, and it has indeed worked well in areas such as Leith, where packed public meetings have reached consensus on local spending priorities. I urge him to consider legislative options and ask what specific support the Government might give to expanding this report. Finally, it is exceptionally important that the issues that are raised around erlopments are resolved. Although I didn't join the committee until the beginning of December, I think that, like many of my colleagues, the proposals in the bill are familiar territory, certainly for many of us who are serving local councillors for many years. There are big messages in there about outcomes and what success might actually look like, putting our community planning partnerships in a statutory footing for the first time, and real empowerment for local people and representative organisations to be more and simply engaged in a process but to help to define what the future will look like at a local level. If we achieve those aims, we will certainly have taken a great stride forward towards delivering real community empowerment. As our committee convener said only a few weeks ago during his speech on flexibility and autonomy in local government, that if communities are to be empowered, those powers must be passed down through the tiers of government, but at the moment this was not happening. The bill gives us that golden opportunity to move that forward to the next stage. What I like about the committee's report is the breadth of different views taken during the evidence sessions and the plain and simple language used in the many recommendations to the Government that will hopefully help to strengthen the bill as it makes its journey to stage 3. On the issue of setting national outcomes, it is correct that there is an obligation in ministers to develop, publish and review a set of national outcomes for Scotland, but it is equally important that local communities have the power to define what those might actually be to. Many of those giving evidence asked for this, offering the view that that would really empower communities from the bottom up. That could be as demanding as it is rewarding. On the one hand, as Audit Scotland commented, we might wish to set national outcomes to assess national progress on things like health inequalities, life expectancy or educational attainment, but national indicators can often mask significant local variations in performance. As I mentioned earlier, success might look quite different from one community to another. There is a big challenge there, but it is so important to work on this to try to get that balance right. The section on community planning has certainly got some robust feedback, probably as a result of varying levels of satisfaction with the community planning process over the past decade. Some felt that hitherto the process was far too top down, where a collection of public bodies basically came together to map out a community's future for it. In some cases, that could hardly even pass as engagement. For this process to work according to the SCVO, there must be an opportunity for local people to articulate those societal changes that they want to see and for the community planning partnerships to take those up on their behalf. That, in my view, is real empowerment. It should not be a process that we shy away from. As Kay Gilmar from East Ayrshire Council said, if we have a culture of improvement, we do not get anxious if communities, individuals in the community or community groups, make suggestions about how to innovate or do things differently and better. Community empowerment is largely dependent on volunteers. Very often, the same volunteers are relied upon in communities for the provision of many facilities. It is likely that community buyouts will enlist the same volunteers, because we rely on them all the time. What consideration has been given to the capacity of volunteers and sustaining the number of volunteers that are required for community buyouts, given that only 18 per cent of adult volunteers? The member makes a good point, and there is certainly a section that I have seen in the bill that passes through the bill on building community capacity to make that process much more possible to happen. For me, there are clear signs that the Government's proposals are taking us in the right direction. Section 5 of the bill allows individuals and community bodies who would not normally be part of the formal process to be involved in shaping the local outcome improvement plans. That process does not exclude things such as community councils. They have a key part to play in that, too, but the committee made its views clear that engagement is not the same as empowerment, and John Wilson made that point earlier, and that the Government should be absolutely clear about how it intends to empower local people in this crucial community planning process. Perhaps one of the more exciting elements of the bill is the proposals that communities can seek to take control over council-owned buildings and land, not as a result of council disposals but as a proactive and positive move that helps the community to achieve its aims. That is a fundamental shift for me in how Scotland's land and building assets are managed and presents communities right across Scotland with the opportunity to lead and drive that process for themselves. There are quite a few asset transfer processes already in place in Scotland, but the difference in the bill is that communities can instigate those requests themselves, and I think that that is a welcome and positive change from the current situation and is consistent with the Christie commission findings. In the time that I have left, I think that the bill offers communities across Scotland real powers to shape and develop their local communities and to do that very much from the bottom up. It will not be an easy process for councils, officials or even elected members, but I think that if all of us embrace the principles behind the bill, Scotland will surely be the better place for it. Before I move the closing speeches, there are several members who have not been in the chamber for some time and would remind them that they should be here for the closing speeches, although they are not at this time. Alex Ferguson, up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was very tempted to start by saying that if Mike Russell's contribution represented him in hiding, as he referred to, heaven help us all if he ever decides to come out of hiding, I will resist that temptation. No one in their right minds, I do not think, could disagree with the overall aims of the bill that we have been discussing this afternoon. Some of the detail might be a different matter, as many members Alex Rowley, Rob Gibson and Tavish Scott have all highlighted as have others, but any measure, legislative or otherwise, that seeks to strengthen community participation, unlock enterprise in community development and renew our communities must be worthy of support, and we on these benches will be supporting the general principles of the bill at decision time. As a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, my involvement with the bill has been limited to part 4, and I will focus on one or two reservations that I have about that part shortly, but it is clear from the many briefings we have received from outside organisations that I am by no means alone in having some reservations and concerns over various aspects of the bill. One of those aspects centres on the definition of community, a topic on which we spent quite a lot of time in the committee. Now, I am personally drawn towards defining a community by place or location rather than by communities of interest. However, the concerns raised by Inclusion Scotland, which Alex Rowley referred to, which highlights what it calls a missed opportunity to give disabled, disadvantaged and marginalised people the ability to participate in community planning has made me sit up and think. If any groups deserve to be further empowered when it comes to the delivery of local services, then it must surely be those groups, and I hope that the Government will look seriously at that aspect when it comes to stage 2. I listen very carefully to the minister's comments on equalities in his opening speech, and I do think the fact that Inclusion Scotland and others have suggested that the bill as drafted runs the risk of further disempowering, disadvantaged and marginalised groups must surely ensure that this concern is looked at and taken seriously. I do not often agree with Joan McAlpine, but I am delighted to say that today is an occasion when I do, because I was also very interested in the point raised by the Scottish Woodlot Association, a body that I very much support, particularly Scotland's first woodlot, was established in my constituency. However, the Woodlot Association has stated that, for woodlot licences to reach their full potential in Scotland, they need to be established on state land as well as on private land. I agree with that wholeheartedly, Presiding Officer, and I hope that the Government will agree with the recommendation 347, which seeks a review of the legislation that currently prevents the Forestry Commission from leasing land to communities for forestry purposes. It is surely logical that, just as the Forestry Commission now plays an important role in bringing new entrants into agriculture through the development of starter farms, it could do the same with foresters. Presiding Officer, planning advice Scotland makes an important point, which is that community planning, as a local authority function that sits alongside the planning system, needs to engage more effectively with local communities. I strongly agree with that point, Presiding Officer, because I know that most of the communities that I represent view community planning as the ultimate in talking shops, something that the council does somewhat remotely without much local input or impact. Community planning is not understood by communities, it is not across the length and breadth of the country. Given the heightened role that community planning is to play in delivering the aims of this legislation, that is something that simply must be corrected. Presiding Officer, I want to talk about part 4 of the bill in the time that remains to me. Although I did not comment on the first sentence of the Racky Committee's report when we were discussing it, I am more than a little taken aback by the wording that a bill is needed to remedy the defects of the Land Reform Scotland 2003 Act. I may be being a little oversensitive about that, but as the convener of the Rural Affairs Committee, which led on the 2003 bill, I might have preferred some wording along the lines of a bill that is needed to build on the successes of the 2003 act. I was interested to hear from the evidence that we took that not many community purchases had taken place using the legislation from 2003. However, what was clear was that many communities had engaged in the right-to-buy process because of the very existence of the act. In other words, the act has acted as a catalyst to empower communities in ways that would almost certainly never have happened without the existence of the act. I think that that points to quite a successful piece of legislation rather than one that is full of defects. Nonetheless, Presiding Officer, the time is right to extend its provisions, particularly into urban areas, and we very much welcome the principle of doing so. Where I have descended from the Racky report is over the committee's recommendations on the power to extend the community right to buy where there is no willing seller. The Government's position is that this should only apply as a last resort when other measures and negotiations have failed. I could accept that, and indeed the committee accepts that. However, the majority of the committee then goes on to question the need to restrict the definition of eligible land to that which is wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected, and to ask why a definition is needed at all, believing that the tests of furthering sustainable development and of being in the public interest are capable of testing all the requirements. In my view, those criteria also require greater definition if we are really to understand where we are going with this legislation. I find myself endorsing the Government's position on this as laid out in the policy memorandum. The committee's majority recommendation would, in my view, open the door to a virtual absolute right to buy for communities. The Government has effectively ruled that out in relation to agricultural holdings, and I hope that it will hold fast to its original intentions for this bill as well. However, above all, what has been highlighted right throughout this debate by Mike Russell, Sarah Boyack and many others is the urgent need for this Government to provide clear definitions within this legislation as we move forward into stage 2. If it can do so, if it does so, I feel quite certain that this bill, which in many ways bears a welcome resemblance to the Localism Act 2011 brought in by the current UK Government, will eventually receive unanimous cross-party support. I very much hope that that will be possible because our communities deserve no less from their Parliament. Many thanks. I now call on Ken Macintosh up to nine minutes. Can I just begin by saying what an excellent debate this has been? There has been clear good will expressed from all sides across the Parliament in support of this bill. I think that Graeme Dey talked about it, described it as welcome unanimity. I am not sure that it was quite unanimity. Alison Johnstone said that we could be slightly braver. There was some friendly criticism, but we are definitely welcoming this bill, certainly the direction of travel outlined in this bill, and we will be supporting it at the decision time today. Not only does it attempt to build on the recommendations of the Christie commission, I would suggest that it builds on the whole devolution agenda and the creation of the Scottish Parliament itself. The idea of subsidiarity and of each of us at a local and personal level exercising as much control and influence as possible over the forces that affect our lives and the services that support us in that. Just as I am pleased, the Government has finally brought forward this bill because it did have a bit of a stuttering start. I am especially grateful for the work of the local government and regeneration committee and of the rural affairs, climate change and environment committee. I thank members of both committees who have highlighted the strengths, but also the many weaknesses and concerns that still exist about the bill. I am not sure that the minister deserved to have his hard work dismissed as mere gobbledygook by the normally assiduously loyal convener of the local government committee, but there are tensions and even paradoxes around community empowerment, which have to be addressed if this bill is to be effective, and which at the moment remain slightly wooly and slightly vague. I was particularly welcoming off Tavishes Scots' thoughtful but quite spiky contribution. Mr Scott warned that, if we are not careful, this could be a lawyer's charter. There are certainly some questions outstanding—how to ensure robust and democratic accountability when it comes to utilising public resources? How to reconcile local control and therefore local variation with national demands for equity and fairness? Perhaps most important of all, how to ensure that, rather than narrowing inequality in Scotland, the bill does not make it worse? That dilemma was raised repeatedly in evidence, as well as in debate. The local government committee quoted from the Poverty Alliance, who stated, that the most important aspect of the bill is about empowering Scotland's most disadvantaged communities and narrowing inequalities between those communities that are already empowered and those that require more support. However, the added, there is a danger that the bill in its current form will most benefit those communities that are already empowered and able to take advantage of the provisions in the bill. Mr MacDonald. I hear what the member is saying, however, empowerment does not naturally follow in terms of affluence. Indeed, many of the deprived communities that I represent in my constituency have flourishing community organisations and delivery of services within the community by the community. There are good examples out there in some of our more deprived areas of communities taking charge of what is going on in their area. There are indeed good examples, but, as I have also pointed out, there is a danger that participation requests could, they certainly run the risk of becoming the privilege of already empowered communities. It is a problem that, certainly, I would suggest that most of us as MSPs have encountered in our work. At its most basic, it is making sure that resources are distributed fairly and not according to those who shout the loudest. I noticed in the beginning of the debate that we had a battle of quotes between Kevin Stewart and my colleague Alex Rowley. Kevin Stewart was suggesting that we should listen to Ernest Hemingway and trust each other, whereas Alex, my colleague Alex Rowley, suggested that we should be wiser to listen to Lyndon Johnson and ask ourselves what harm would it do if those powers were to be wrongly administered. Certainly, I have no doubt whatsoever that the minister and most members in this chamber share my intention and that of my Labour colleagues to use this bill, to give a voice to the power list to enfranchise those who are most marginalised, but inadvertently or otherwise we have to be careful that the bill does not simply give more power to the middle classes. I look forward to the minister bringing forward amendments to address this genuine anxiety. There is a parallel concern, too, that, despite the new powers for communities to deliver public services or to control public assets, the processes that are established could simply reinforce the dominance of the public sector, be it council, health board or enterprise agency, a hierarchy of power and empowerment. This was a concern a top-down approach that was flagged up by the SCVO and the Royal Society. What I believe emerged very strongly from the consultation on the bill was the need to invest in building community capacity and resilience, a point that Margaret MacDougall highlighted near the end of the debate. When we speak to the third sector, it would highlight that programmes that support community capacity are the very ones under threat in the current financial climate, which brings me neatly on to finance because there are major questions, question marks over the funding for the bill or rather the lack of clear funding, something flagged up by both the LGR and the Finance Committee. For many, it is not just a question that there is a lack of reasonable estimates, it is the fact that it is not going to make any funding happen. I think that Rob Gibson, the convener of Rackay, acknowledged when he said that funding requirements will need to be kept under review. In fact, the minister himself spoke of the benefits of participatory budgeting for communities. I would suggest that, if it is good enough for local groups, surely it is good enough for the Parliament itself. I would agree entirely with Angus Hardy, quoted earlier from the Scottish Community Alliance, that we certainly should not allow this to derail the bill, but it would be wrong. In fact, it would be a failing on the Government's account if we were not to face up to this issue and offer clarity. I was also undoubtedly to be welcomed that the bill tries to update legislation on allotment. Allotments play a more vital role than ever in allowing people access to the natural environment, growing their own healthy food and contributing to a more sustainable way of life here in Scotland. The trouble seems to be that the minister does not seem to have won the confidence of the allotment holders themselves. In his opening remarks, Mr Biaisie revealed the death of his office as Pedistra. He bemoaned his predecessor, Mr Mackay's lack of green fingers. I worry that the new minister has inherited that treat. The Scottish Allotments and Garden Society have been calling for five substantial amendments to the section of the bill, but since the minister's intervention, his meetings and phone call, they are now calling for the whole section of the bill to be dropped altogether. I am not sure whether to encourage the minister or ask him to lay off. I would like to echo Claudia Beamish's possibly unintentional, but very appropriate metaphor when she said that he must avoid kicking this into the long grass. I also welcome the points that are made by Alison Johnstone and the Green Party on fan ownership of football clubs that indicate Labour's sympathy and, hopefully, when we see that amendments are practical support for those proposals. Supporters Direct has made huge progress in recent years and several clubs that Alison Johnstone listed have made the move now, but it is impossible to look at Scottish football at the moment and not recognise the problems that are created by the wrong kind of ownership model. Fans and the local community put the interests of their local club first and there has never been a better time to promote the right to buy for football supporters. Finally, if I may, I would like to turn to perhaps the most important issue of Land Reformer and welcome the many contributions that are made across the chamber. In fact, I think that it was the subject most focused on by many Mark McDonald, Bob Doris, John Wilson and many more, particularly the move to extending the powers of land reform to urban areas and trying to exercise the pitfalls and the advantages of trying to exercise control over community assets. Both Rob Gibson and Mike Russell agreed on the weakness of the proposed legislation in not defining abandoned or neglected land on the face of the bill. In fact, I am quite grateful to Mike Russell for enlightening me on the fate of my old school, Rockfield primary, which is possible to become an art gallery. I can assure you that it is certainly not based on any art contribution that I made. He was particularly forceful, I thought, in describing the enormous barrier that the lack of definition of abandon or neglected land clause could pose the bill. I am surprised, therefore, that the committee seemed to leave the door open on this issue, with only Sarah Boyack and Claudia Beamish following the logic of the evidence heard and insisting that the clause either has to be defined or has to go. John Wilson and several Labour colleagues highlighted the need for social and economic development to be taken into consideration, not just environmental issues. Sarah Boyack, in particular, reminded us of the need to learn from past experience. I would like to conclude on that very point. Nielsen Development Trust is my own area of East Renfisher—sorry, sorry, I thought I had the extra minute, but I will conclude now. It is one of the best examples that I know of a community using existing land reform legislation to take control of the asset—the former Clyde deal bank, in our case—but the legislation not just enabled it. It was almost the hurdle, the hurdle of poor definition of too many obstacles in the way, despite the good intentions. I urge the minister not to make the same mistake in this bill, but to empower Scotland's communities to take control. Much. Mr Biacchi, you have 10 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am tempted to join in the quote exchanging, but the quote that perhaps jumped to mind is that, laws like sausages cease to inspire respect and proportion as we know how they are made, sometimes allocated attributed to Bismarck, but apparently John Godfrey sacks. That has been an experience in seeing laws made. I think that I have seen a lot of examples this afternoon of where we generally look at the same amount of evidence, the same approaches, the same opinions, the same situations, and perhaps in some cases we might do things slightly differently coming from our different political directions, our different personal experiences. That is to be expected, that is why we exist, that is why we do not simply have everything put through without debate, but ultimately we have a unity over those general principles. However, if I can go on to some of those areas where we disagree, I would just gently suggest that the flipside to that ability to look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions invites the question of what would have happened had the Government come to a different conclusion. Would the Opposition in some cases have been just as strong in highlighting the alternative in those cases? One that I would point out, which was first raised by Alex Rowley but was mentioned right through, was the issue of the finances in the bill. We continue to have a difference of view here. As we have said, we believe that the financial information that is provided to the Parliament on the bill has been the best estimate that could have been provided of the administrative compliance and other costs to which the bill could give rise. It is the best estimate of the timescales as well. We have been up front throughout the bill process. The elements of the bill—participation requests, community right to buy, asset transfer requests and allotments—will be driven by the demand from communities and that we cannot predict what that demand might be with any degree of certainty. We know that through consultation and had we attempted to pluck a figure from the air that could have been misleading, confusing, false, it would have led to just as much criticism and let us simply accept that what has been put forward is the best estimate that we can put forward. Looking ahead to another area that has had a lot of debate, there is the issue of the allotments part. The Government comes to this with a principle that we all agree on. Allotments are a good thing, and there should be more of them. That is the principle that we share and we are working with. Looking at the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society five-point proposition, going through it and defining a standard plot as normally 250m2 is something that we intend to have powers to deal with, to deal with the size and it should be compared to where we are at the moment, which is that there is essentially no restriction on a local authority. When I visited the allotment that I went to see, there were some plots that were described as full plots, there were some that were described as half plots and local authorities have that variability at the moment. The bill would actually increase the power to set minimum sizing and I have made the offer to SAGs to initiate those powers straight after the bill is enacted. Similarly, the concerns about fair rent, which I think led to Bruce Crawford's suggestion, at present there is a fair rent clause, but it is undefined and the problems that have given rise to the controversy here in Edinburgh of rents being increased substantially are happening under the current legislation. I think that looking at these sorts of concerns, we can come to some agreement that kicking this into the long grass is not going to help anyone because the additional protections that are put out here, for example, the requirement to create a waiting list that would result in nearly 1,000 new allotments being generated is something that we want to have happen now. It is important to get this done and I would rather fix it at stage 2 and continue in dialogue than remove entirely. I also think that it is interesting to note the issues that have been raised about common good, why common good has not been defined. Common good is a very interesting, very particular aspect of the Scottish public policy legal historic landscape and it is going to be addressed in oncoming land reform work. However, it was an opportunity to take some steps pretty quickly on which people could agree a common good register, ensuring that that came into effect within five years and to ensure that communities, including community councils, are consulted on the disposal of common good. The wider issue will be dealt with in future legislation, but I would just suggest to Alison Johnstone that she wants to tell councils what to do about common good land rather than the approach of the Scottish Government on ensuring consultation with communities. There is a tension there and had we taken the other route, we would have been criticised as centralists. On the wider issue of land reform, Sarah Boyack asked me if I could state when the information was coming in my closing speech. I can actually do that, but I can do that I have to say by quoting my opening speech, which was that the minister will provide draft regulations that will detail those matters, which must be considered when determining whether or not land is neglected or abandoned in advance of stage 2. The reason that it is a critical issue is because although we start taking evidence in a month's time, we also have the community right to buy, so we would like to see your response to the whole of our committee report, not just that one issue. Reports will come, but the commitment on providing the draft regulations is there. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that everybody will get it wrong, let us have a faith that those regulations may well turn out to be right. I would like to highlight to the minister that it is not a case of jumping to conclusions, it is a case of having taken a substantial amount of evidence and not being convinced. I am sure that the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will reflect and come to you in advance of stage 2, but one of the other issues that Claudia Beamish raised was the issue of the locality. There has been some debate here, if I can put some light on to this, the issue here is that we essentially have two similar but rather different mechanisms in asset transfer and land reform, and the approach that was taken in 2003, the approach that has been taken on land reform by-outs, has been to use an area-based approach, whereas asset transfer, which is more from the public sector to the community sector, rather than from the private sector to the community sector, there is a difference in the thresholds of justification. You need the ways of doing it, and it is appropriate there to open it up to communities of interest. We are not being prescriptive, and in that regard, community councils, when it comes to asset transfer, when it comes to participation requests, are equally able to join in, as anybody else, through asset transfer. There are many examples of community councils that have set up community development trusts, which help to ensure them against the financial risks and which allow them to play a great role. It is, however, something that I intend to return to because I recognise a lot of the concerns that have been raised, although I would draw people's attention back to the local government and reform and regeneration committee, who said that a great deal of devolved decision making can happen already. On that, community planning is an area that is going to need greater engagement. Let's just make a differentiation between the community planning partnership, covering an entire local authority, where a third sector interface is the best way to participate and what you might call genuine community planning partnerships, those sorts of groups that councils convene at local levels that can decide at local levels and can really involve the local neighbourhood associations, residents associations to make decisions. That is something that we want to see improved. The national standards on community engagement, I did when I looked them up for an appointment, I did see Malcolm Chisholm's face smiling at me out of them, but I would say that they were passed in 2005 and there was, as just one point, no such thing as social media in 2005, the ways that we have to engage with communities and allow communities to participate has changed massively. The committee was very right to notice the difference between empowerment and engagement, but I would also draw attention to the difference between participation and consultation. I'm afraid that I don't have time. I'm just concluding. That is, with a final message, to remember why we're here, remember that we came into this to empower communities and that's what this bill's general principles are for. I said in my opening that what we needed was a bit more help and a bit fewer obstacles, so let's just imagine what this will do, the principles, a Scotland where neglecting abandoned buildings that are a blight on streets and towns can be bought out by the community and renovated, where councils are empowered to help businesses to regenerate town centres, where everybody knows the common good assets and will be guaranteed in decisions about what's held in their name, where every part of Scotland has a partnership between all the bodies delivering for people with tackling inequality and participation at the heart of that, where the country as a whole, which we hardly mentioned, will have a clear mission for the kind of nation we want to create and where we have a Scotland that isn't afraid of letting public assets be owned and managed by the communities that they serve. It would be a Scotland where participation by those authentic voices of community know-how and experience were welcomed and invited to participate whenever any decision was being taken. That's the general principles of this bill, and I hope we endorse them just in a moment. That concludes the debate on the community empowerment Scotland bill. We now move to the next site of business, which is consideration of motion number 12113, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for community empowerment Scotland bill. I call John Swinney to move the motion, Deputy First Minister. The question this motion will be put at decision time to which we now come. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 12220, in the name of Michael B.R.J., on the community empowerment Scotland bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12113, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the community empowerment Scotland bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It's not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12113, in the name of John Swinney, is as follows. Yes, 76, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The motion is there for agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.