 Morgwm. Fy nôr y cy sittbannu am meddwl y ddiwy cantiaf vary überzeugu'r Eco-reform podeidiogydd. Ieant chefinn Stuart, It is proposed that we take items 7 and 8 in private. Item 7 is the committee's approach to the delegated powers memorandum for the Scottish Crown Estates Bill. Item 8 is consideration of the evidence that we are about to hear on planning the Scotland bill. Does the committee agree to take these items in private? Rwy'n gymryd i gynffrwch â ganddwyl gynfer-pwyllai, felly mae'r plan ddechrau'r Bill. Rwy'n gweithio'r rhaglenu'r Bill i ddigon i'r ddechrau'r eu ddechrau'r ddechrau'r dweud. Rydym yn helpu i gyd, Llewyn Sturff, ddwy Llywodraeth i gwrsgwmp yng Nghymru. Welcome minister again. He's supported by Gene Waddey, Bill co-ordinator, Norman Macleod, senior principal legal officer and John McNanny, chief planner. Morning to you all. Minister, have you got an opening statement? I do please, convener, and thank you very much. Good morning to everyone. The Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 sets the structure of Scotland's planning system. The planning bill builds on previous modernisation to amend the 1997 act. It introduces well targeted changes to the system to ensure that planning realises its full potential. The bill balances the need to establish the key principles of the planning system and primary legislation, with the practical merits of allowing for more detailed secondary legislation such as specific aspects of the process to be brought forward in due course. Three key factors have guided our approach. First, we are building on the existing planning system, not starting again. The extent of delegated powers proposed in the bill is consistent with the current system. Regulations have long set out procedural detail for significant parts of the system, such as the development management and development planning, along with the use classes order and the general permitted development order. Detailed process changes to follow the bill will include amending existing secondary legislation alongside the use of the proposed new powers. Secondly, the approach to the planning bill has been open and inclusive since it began with the review undertaken by the independent panel. The changes that we propose have already been widely debated by stakeholders and members of the public over the past two years. We will continue that approach to inform the more detailed design of future secondary legislation. Thirdly, flexibility is crucial. Planning needs to be sufficiently agile to handle changing circumstances. Examples of that include the need to allow for digital innovation to help improve procedures or allowing new features of the system such as the gate check for development plans. Those needs to be informed by those new ways of working. A lot can change between planning bills and we should not restrict new approaches by having too much detail in primary legislation. With regard to the powers for Scottish ministers to intervene through making directions, the committee will appreciate that existing discretionary powers are used sparingly to take action on nationally significant issues as they arise. Examples of the use of existing powers include the directions made to support our moratorium on unconventional oil and gas extraction and the use of ministers discretion to intervene where development plans lack sufficient land for housing. Those powers are a backstop recognising that all developments may have impacts out with their own area and sometimes ministers have to make difficult decisions in the national interest. I hope that this provides a useful context to inform our discussion today and I look forward to your questions. The bill contains a large number of delegated powers. We counted 46 that are not unprecedented but it is a lot and throughout the bill the whole theme seems to be that powers come to you minister and don't flow down so there's a lot of powers coming your way if this gets approval. Can you explain in general terms why you've taken that approach and why you've left so much to secondary legislation? I appreciate the large number of delegated powers in the bill. However, the approach very much follows the existing arrangements for planning legislation. For the most part, the main provision is set out in the primary legislation and secondary legislation fills in the procedures, timescales and information requirements and so on. Direction making powers are available for ministers to act where necessary in relation to individual cases. The bill seeks to follow the same approach as the 2005 bill so that in future it will be possible to update procedures together and to keep them absolutely consistent. Even where the powers in the bill are new, in many cases they follow the existing provisions that are laid out. For example, there are existing powers for ministers to make regulations about costs, procedure and what is to be assessed in the examination of a local development plan. The bill includes the gate check assessment of the evidence report, which in effect moves part of the examination process to the beginning of the plan's preparation. It includes equivalent regulation making powers so that the examination and the gate check can be treated similarly and the procedures can be changed together. Planning involves a lot of procedural detail. Although there are some more significant delegated powers in the bill, I am afraid that many of them, as the bill team leader has said previously to myself, many of them are dull and are a standard use of secondary legislation. I hope that Ms Woodie forgives me for using her term dull in that regard. Yes, many of them are dull but some of them are not dull and some of them are very important. So we are going on to explore some of the ones that we have picked up on. For example, the national planning framework, section 3C A3 of the 1997 act allows ministers to make further provision in regulations about amendments to the MPF. We asked the Scottish Government why it was appropriate to make provision in regulations rather than on the face of the bill, given that it has concerns setting the procedure for parliamentary scrutiny. You explained to us in your written response that there is a need for flexibility to respond to a range of circumstances that could arise that may require procedures to be amended or new procedures developed and that a regulation making power is appropriate. However, those regulations will establish the parliamentary procedure for consideration of amendments to the MPF. Can you explain why you consider it appropriate for ministers to determine the procedure for parliamentary scrutiny in regulations rather than that procedure being set out on the face of the bill for Parliament to agree? So why should it be you that decides the procedure and not Parliament? The written response explained that one option that we are looking at in relation to amendments of the national planning framework is frequent minor updating in response to real-time data. Obviously, that would only be for agreed specific aspects that do not change overall policy, but it might not be proportionate for all of those adjustments to be laid before the Parliament each time. Regulations might set out how such regular amendments could be made and that Parliament could review them periodically. I will give you examples of that real-time data aspect. At this moment in time, I have established a digital task force to look at improving planning across the board. However, in particular, one of the things that has come in for criticism previously is the fact that the national planning framework does not necessarily move quickly enough to meet changing times. I think that a good example of that and Mr McNearney may correct me here if I have this slightly wrong. During the course of the national planning framework 3 in 2014, I am getting a nod, so I am right with the date, a feature of that national planning framework was Long Annett and Kikkenzie. Not long after that planning framework was agreed, we have seen the closure of Long Annett and the closure of Kikkenzie. We need to take a cognisance of that ever-changing situation that we find ourselves in in terms of some of those major things, but we also need to take cognisance of the ever-changing technology that we know is taking place all of the time. I think that folk would appreciate it if we could deal with real-time data when it comes to those things quickly and effectively. It is to provide flexibility for that type of innovative approach that we propose the procedures for amendments that should be set in regulations. I have given you those examples. We do not know what new technology will throw up in the period of a planning framework. I do not want to limit what we can do in that regard. I am sure that Parliament does not want to limit the possibilities of being able to change quickly. The Parliament does scrutinise all regulations that are proposed by ministers and has the opportunity to reject them if they see fit. I do not accept that that kind of provision must always be in primary legislation. We have seen with some of the other legislation that we have here in Scotland where we are ahead of elsewhere. A good example is probably building standards, convener, where we have been able to keep ahead of the game and have a more robust system than south of the border, because the primary legislation allowed us to bring in secondary legislation as required to update regulation on a regular basis. I do not accept that all of that must be in primary legislation. I think that there are benefits to having some of those things in secondary legislation to make sure that we can keep up to date as possible. Your argument seems to me that the world changes quickly, technology changes quickly, therefore we need to concentrate on powers in your hands to allow that to happen very quickly. That is not what I have asked at all, convener. As I explained in my answer to you, Parliament scrutinises all those regulations. I would expect that to be the case in terms of any secondary legislation that is brought forward. I know from my role as a minister, but my previous role is a convener that committees can do a huge amount in terms of the scrutinisation of secondary legislation. The NPF has an enhanced role under this bill. It is really very important. Everything flows up through that. I do not think that anyone would argue that you should not make changes. If you are having plans every 10 years, you will have to make changes. The key thing is how those changes are scrutinised. Would you accept that any changes should be—if they are to be made—should go through the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure, so that Parliament can at least be satisfied that we have had that sort of thorough scrutiny of the changes that are made? From the very beginning of the process of the review, the right way through to the publication of the bill, we have done as much as we possibly can to involve stakeholders at every stage. I agree that if there are significant changes to the national planning framework, it will be of considerable interest to stakeholders. You can be assured that we will consult widely where that is the case. I have already explained that there are other cases where amendments are minor and a lighter touch is more suitable. However, I recognise the committee's concerns about the procedure for regulations prescribing when amendments should be laid before Parliament. I am prepared to look at that issue. That is good. I think that it would be useful if we had something on the face of the bill setting out some kind of parameters on when changes can be made and how they can be made and the procedure to be used. Are you prepared to look at that? I am prepared to look at that. I do not think that it necessarily has to be on the face of the bill, convener, but I am prepared to look at the ways that we deal with those matters. I think that what we do require is a level of flexibility here to ensure that we create the best possible planning system for Scotland, because that is what we deserve. We also require that flexibility in order to meet the challenges of an ever-changing world. I am quite sure, convener, that, like me, the committee would want to see those changes being brought in where necessary as quickly as they possibly can be, but with the level of scrutiny and stakeholder involvement that is required. We will move on to a different line of questioning. That is around some of the direction-making powers in the bill. Alison Harris has a question. The bill provides for significant direction-making powers. What will you do to ensure that ministers are accountable for the exercise of those powers and that there is public transparency applied to the exercise of power? As with other delegated powers, the bill provides for direction-making powers in line with those that already exist in the planning system, as I have said previously. That is to allow ministers to take the necessary action in individual cases or in relation to particular issues that arise. In some cases, those powers are alive for a more proportionate approach than before. For example, the best one is probably about simplified planning zone proposals, which have to be notified to the Scottish ministers, but the new simplified development zones will only have to be notified where that is required by direction. Ministers are always accountable to Parliament for the use of their powers and can be asked to come and explain themselves at any time. All directions made under planning legislation are a matter of public record and are published routinely on the planning pages of the Scottish Government website. They are published. As I said, we are accountable to Parliament in all regards. I cannot think of a case off the top of my head where ministers have been asked to account for the directions after they have been published. Parliament could do that at any time, but so far it has chosen not to do so. Given the significance of some of the direction-making powers, would you consider possibly a requirement to publish the directions being set out on the face of the bill? That would include providing for the reasons for making the direction? We already published the decisions of directions, as I said, on the Scottish Government website. I do not see what adding that to the face of the bill would do. As I have said in my previous answer, convener, those directions are published on the Scottish Government website. There is the ability for Parliament to ask ministers to account for the directions that have been made. That has never happened, as far as I am aware. Perhaps you need to go a bit further and alert people when you have used those powers rather than just publishing it and expecting people to notice it. If you want, convener, for me to inform Spice or some other parliamentary body about when those things are published on the website, I am quite happy to do that. What about providing the reasons when you have made the direction? That is always set out too. Again, if Parliament wants me to account for those situations, I am more than happy, as always, to come before a committee. As Mr Simpson well knows from the amount of times that I have appeared in front of the local government committee since taking up post, I am not shy of coming in front of a committee to account for what I have done and to allow the committee to scrutinise my actions. That is a fair comment, minister. David Torrance. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Good morning. Just following up on my colleague Allison there, it may not be appropriate to report to have to be made to Parliament on each occasion on which direction making powers is exercised. Would you consider reporting to Parliament on a regular basis, perhaps every three years, on the use of more significant powers collectively? I do not think, convener, that a timescale or setting out a timescale is the best way of doing that. Parliament, at this moment, has the ability to call me to account for actions, as I have already stated. I do not think that a timescale is necessarily a good thing. I would expect that, if Parliament wanted me to account for a direction that I had made, it would be right to do so at that particular point in time, rather than laying down a marked period. Mr Torrance, do you have a follow-up? No, I do not. The thing is, minister, that we have some new powers here. The power to alter simplified development zones, the power to transfer functions when there are insufficient trained councillors, and the directions to planning authority following an assessment and performance. Those are all new things. We do not know how often you would use those powers. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect you to report to Parliament. As I have said, convener, I am not averse to reporting to Parliament at any period in time. Can I clarify just a couple of things? You have raised a few things there. If we take, for example, the training aspect of all of this and if there is an insufficient amount of elected members who have carried out training to take a decision, I would expect that power to be used very sparingly indeed. The only time that I could envisage that power being used, for example, is if there was an election, there had been a huge change in membership in a local authority, that no-one there had had the requisite training and an application had to be dealt with very quickly. I could see the power being used at that point. However, you would have to have all of those factors in play again, which is kind of unlikely, but that power is there just in case something like that happens. Somebody else suggested to me that the other example would be if the entire membership of the local authority were to be on a bus and an accident was happening, which again is a highly unlikely circumstance and one that I hope would never happen. However, that power would be used extremely sparingly. It is in there because logic dictates that you have got to account for every single thing that could possibly happen in that regard, but I think that that is one that is not likely to be used. That is one example. That is that one, but we simply do not know. It is surely not unreasonable to ask you to report to Parliament if you get these new powers on whether you have used them. We would do so, as I have already pointed out. I am not a verse to come in to committee to account for actions that have been taken. Relation to the issue around the training for councillors who are trained in making decisions, do the circumstances pertaining to councillors apply to themselves? Convener, in the bill they do not apply to myself, but I am quite happy to undergo training all of the time. I think that continuous professional development is absolutely essential. When I was a councillor, and when the changes came into play in 2007, where there was a requirement for continuous professional development, I took that CPD and I took it seriously. I am sure that if somebody wanted to go back, they would be able to see all of the training that I undertake as an elected member. I think that that is absolutely essential for all elected members. We have already seen in past times the agreement that licensing board members should undertake training with an exam at the end for very obvious reasons. I see no difference here. While training has gone on in certain local authorities in the past, it maybe has not been all that is required. I do think that that provides a huge opportunity for folks to get this absolutely right. I do not think that anyone should be afraid of that continuous professional development or the training. I hope that folk out there would agree that that is the right way forward in that regard, because often accusations are made that elected members are making decisions without having the full knowledge. I think that that training would ensure that they are able to scrutinise better and would also hopefully put a halt to some of those accusations that go on on a regular basis. The issue is that you are seeking to impose—this is not me personalising it, and you, as an individual minister, are seeking to impose conditions on elected councillors that would not be imposed upon themselves. You said that you would be willing to do X, Y and Z. That is very noble. I do do X, Y and Z. Excellent. I am sure that you might do A, B and C as well. That is very noble, and I think that that is right, but that is not necessarily the approach that might be taken by a subsequent minister who might have a different point of view. Therefore, it seems a bit hypocritical that, in seeking to apply those conditions to councillors who will make those decisions, you could be making many more decisions, very much more big strategic decisions, or a minister could, without any training whatsoever. I heart back to the point of the licensing situation, convener. Parliament agreed at that point that elected members at council level who are making those decisions locally should undergo that training. I think that that is the right thing to do. The vast bulk of planning decisions that are taken are taken by local authority councillors. That is the way that we want to see that continue. I think that they should have all of the tools at their disposal to be able to do that properly. I think that that includes a level of training that has not been there in many places at this moment in time. I see no difference between the situation of licensing elected members and licensing boards or elected members on planning committees in that regard. I would also say that, due to the fact that infrastructure levy regulations may make provision about how related planning legislation may or may not be exercised, the first circumstance in which this power can be exercised is where ministers consider it expedient to modify legislation to enhance the effectiveness of the infrastructure levy as a means to raise revenues. Can you explain why the Government considers it appropriate to take such broad regulation making powers and whether more could be done to develop the policy to ensure that power is limited to that which is necessary and proportionate? The policy principles have been reflected in the bill provisions. The levy will be payable to local authority in relation to developments in its area to fund or to partly fund infrastructure projects in that area. There has been, of course, that myth that has grown up that infrastructure levy would be retained by a Government. That is definitely not the case and I would reiterate that it would be retained by local authorities to fund or partly fund infrastructure projects in its area. There should also be scope for authorities to pro-resources to jointly fund regional scale projects. The regulations would be informed by further development work and consultations on how those principles can be achieved through appropriate and practical operational arrangements. Regulation making powers will also allow us to ensure that the approach reflects the context within which the levy will operate, such as changing economic and market circumstances. The bill specifically links modifications to legislation to the effectiveness of the infrastructure levy, so that it would be limited in scope. In practice, the main consideration would be the relationship with section 75 of the planning act and related legislation through which financial payments can be sought from development. It is possible that the levy could lead to adjustment of other parts of the system, for example ensuring that the evidence report that forms part of the local development plan process provides an appropriate level of information on infrastructure capacity. I have a determination that we get that right. We have seen difficulties arise south of the border in terms of the community infrastructure levy and section 106 south of the border. That is why we will carry out the work and make sure that we do not have that conflict or that accusation that there has been south of the border of double charging. That has been a concern. I will check something with you. Just for clarity, you said that the Scottish Government would not retain infrastructure levy money, but you could collect it and then redistribute it. Am I correct in thinking that? Correct. To make this quite clear, infrastructure levy income could not be retained by the Scottish Government, but it might be appropriate for the money to be aggregated and redistributed to fund infrastructure across a wider area. Paragraph 14.2 of schedule 1 clearly states that, if regulations require infrastructure levy income to be transferred to the Scottish ministers, those regulations must also provide for all that income to be distributed amongst local authorities. In other words, councils could retain the money, but you could also get that money and decide how it is split up around the country. What I am clear on, convener, and that is why I wanted to blow this myth, is that the Scottish Government would not retain that money. I will read again exactly what it says in the act. The infrastructure levy income could not be retained by the Scottish Government, but it might be appropriate for the money to be aggregated and redistributed to fund infrastructure across a wider area. Paragraph 14.2 of schedule 1 clearly states that, if regulations require infrastructure levy income to be transferred to the Scottish ministers, those regulations must also provide for all that income to be distributed amongst local authorities. I have some takers on this one. I will take Ms Harris first. I heard what you read out, but I would like to go back to the question that Graham Simpson asked and ask you to please address that and answer that question in relation to what you said. Could you ask her a question again, please? I really think that we need an answer on it. Not reading out from what you are saying, I think that we need a definitive answer, please. I will go back and give you the definitive answer, convener. To be clear, there is no proposal that the Scottish Government retains any money, but there may be circumstances, say, within a city region where funds are aggregated and can be distributed over more than one local authority area. It could be transport, for example, where improvements that are funded by the infrastructure levy cover more than one authority area. There could be central administration of that if it helped, or it could happen locally. The key thing is that the money would not be for retention by Government or to be distributed across the wider country, but there are clear circumstances. City deals are an example where funding might transfer over one administrative area. I think that that was the key point. I think that one of the key examples that I could give, convener, from the past is the Aberdeen western peripheral route, for example, which is 81 per cent funded by the Scottish Government, 9.5 per cent by Aberdeenshire and 9.5 per cent by Aberdeen city. In those circumstances, it may well be wise for those for the moneys collected in an infrastructure levy for a project like that to be collected centrally but redistributed out. I think that that is probably a good example, but there is no intention of Government to benefit from that infrastructure levy. It is for local projects. As I pointed out, there will also be agreements between local authorities on joint working and some arts and parts, because that is what is required. At the moment, my understanding was that any levy that is applied fall to the local authority, the individual local authority, is that the current situation still? I will take Mr McNearney first on that technical point and then I will come in. Well, there are no levies as such just now. The presumption is that developers through section 75— Let's call it a different thing, section 75. And section 75 is essentially about restricting and regulating our development, so the improvement through funds raised from section 75 have to have a strong relationship, a significant relationship with the development. Some of that income could currently be pooled, but there would still have to be a clear and direct relationship with the individual application of development. The infrastructure levy breaks that clear link and applies over that geographic area a set levy for roads, education or whatever. That is where the difference is. At the moment, I am correct in saying that any money has fall directly to the local authority, not to anyone else. Mr McLeod probably needs to come in here. I think that, as Mr McNearney said, because it is related to the individual project, it depends on what things need to be mitigated as a result of that individual project. There may be several projects that all impact on the same thing. That could be the trunk roads network or local roads network. The contributions that are made by developments under various agreements are contracted with the play authority, for sure, or they are entered into through section 75 through the play authority, but there may be other mechanisms that would enable funding to be provided to a different type of organisation, which is not a local authority, because it is that organisation's area that is being impacted on by the development. The money goes under that type of arrangement as to where it needs to flow to. I am trying to think of a situation, an example, convener, which is not a live application, which could always get me into some trouble. I think that it is probably the best example that I can think of off the top of my head, if you do not mind. I will not name the authority just in case, but a section 75 agreement reached, which money does not go to the local authority but goes to improve a railway station, for example. Now, there are some situations whereby, in terms of trunk roads and railway stations and other things like that, it may not be necessarily within that local authority area, but there is benefit to that section 75 money going to something. I hope that that explains a little bit. I am trying to think of an example, which is not a live planning application. Maybe Mr McNair and I can think of one, rather than me, maybe putting my foot in it, convener, and not being able to deal with something in the future. Strategic development plans have a core function, which is dealing with cross-border issues, growth areas, where housing should take place and where it should not, but particularly for infrastructure. There may be a proposal in a current strategic development plan that is the basis for taking contributions. It may be that the improvement—the roundabout, for example—is out with a local authority area, but some developers will make a contribution to that improvement. That is technically going out with the local authority area. However, whether it is within the local authority that the development has proposed or out with it, there is some clear line of sight so that developers who are asked to contribute through section 75 have visibility about where their money is going. In that basis, the new system, in what circumstances would we see that money being held temporarily to be distributed at a Scottish Government level? Who would direct that? Who would say that that is supposed to happen with this application? The priorities for spending that money would be set locally. At present, that might be through a strategic development plan. There are regional partnerships that we envisage. We are not trying to control how they would operate, but, for example, in the table plan area, authorities are working together on housing, economy, infrastructure and other services. They would set the priorities. It may well be that they would have a non-statutory strategic development plan that shows what infrastructure they want or those would be translated into local development plans. However, the decisions for the improvement, hopefully, would come through the development plan, set by the relevant planning authorities. However, the spend would be determined locally. Is there any role whatsoever for the Scottish Government in that? If it is three authorities, two authorities, it might open up a bank account and stick in the cash in it. In practice, I do not know if it is as straightforward as that. It may be more than two or three authorities. SES plan and Clyde plan areas are significantly more. That is for consideration, but what we have tried to secure here is an enabling power that enables us to develop more and consult more widely on the detail of how a levy might operate. The provisions that you see are wide because of that, because we do not want to miss the opportunity that the bill presents for us to consider, seriously, whether an infrastructure levy would support development delivery across the country. I am not questioning any of that. There is a lot of logic to that, but I just do not see what the Scottish Government's role is in holding on to the bank account or even being the banker for the cash here. I do not get that. There are circumstances that I have already pointed out, where there are joint projects between the Scottish Government and local authorities. From a procurement point of view, in some regards, it may be better for a lead partner to hold the money, but all the money to go back to that local authority area. There are circumstances where those things can arise. I think that the AWPR is one of those examples where that may happen. I think that the key thing in all that, convener, is the point that I made. That is not a national infrastructure levy for the Government to hold and retain and spend money as it sees fit. That is an infrastructure levy that benefits local authorities in terms of the projects that they want to see in their area, which are required, where they may want to enter into agreements with other local authorities, city deal areas, growth deal areas and, on occasion, may want to enter into deals with the Government to bring forward the infrastructure that is required for that area. The key thing in all that is that the Scottish Government will not be retaining infrastructure levy money. I do not think that anyone in this room is suggesting that that would be the case, minister. Could money go to bodies that are not councils, for example Transport Scotland? At this moment in time, section 75 agreements can cover things that are governed by Transport Scotland. As I mentioned earlier, trunk roads and railway station improvements. That is the entire point of this, to make sure that the infrastructure in the area is right to support the development of that particular place. I feel that we could question you for hours on this, but you have heard that you get the thrust of the questioning. Given that, perhaps you could consider spelling out more detail on the bill about the use of that? I am quite happy to provide any more detail that the committee requires. I have already said that we will write to you in various aspects of our discussions today. If there is anything else that the committee requires from me or my officials, please write, and we will respond accordingly, as we always do. Okay. Thank you very much. David Torrance. Minister, of a certain circumstance in which infrastructure levy regulation may prevent or restrict the use of planning powers is where the minister considers, quote, the power to charge infrastructure levy would be more appropriate. The Scottish Government's response to a committee's written question indicates that a Government has not consulted on the detail of the infrastructure levy and that it is neither possible nor appropriate to set out its relationship with, for example, section 75 planning obligations in primary legislation. We did not be more appropriate for the Scottish Government to develop its policy first and to set out, at least in principle, how related planning provision would operate in the face of a bill, with the power available to amend those provisions in light of experience or changing priorities and practice in due course. I think that we have already gone over the key policy principles in some depth, but let's look at the relationship with section 75, which I have touched upon. The relationship between the infrastructure levy and section 75 is the key to success and to getting this absolutely right, to ensure that we have a fairer charging mechanism here in Scotland. We have to get the detail on this absolutely spot-on correct. That is one of the reasons why I have talked about further consultation and why we need to get this absolutely defined right when it comes to regulation, including how the levy will be calculated. The convener has heard me talk previously about a public event, saying that I was not entirely happy with some of the independent views that had come back. All of that information is currently available on the website, as many of you already know, but we need to make sure that we get that formula absolutely right. That calculation is right, we need to get exemptions right, we need to get discounts right and we need to get the aggregation and spend right. We have committed to review our guidance on section 75 planning obligations, to inform that and to work on the levy. We will also draw on the recent review that has been carried out south of the border with the community infrastructure levy and its relationship to section 106, which I mentioned earlier. We will look at that extremely closely indeed. South of the border, the CIL review team found that the position that was taken in relation to the community infrastructure levy in section 106 resulted in unintended consequences. It led to confusion and a lack of certainty for those who were using the system, and changes that were recommended south of the border are a result of that. I think that that highlights why it is necessary for us to do that further consultation. It is important that we get that absolutely right and allow our stakeholders to have a say in exactly what is happening here. I do not want a situation where there are unintended consequences as they find south of the border. I would rather that we get that absolutely spot on right. In the committee, again, I would try to reassure you that the stakeholder consultation that we will carry out on this will be in depth and hopefully at the end of that, as you scrutinise it as we move forward, you will be happy with what we have done in that regard. The previous levy-raising powers conferred in regulations have been subjected to a form of super-affirmative procedure. Given the breadth of the powers in part 5 schedule 1 of the bill, would it not be more appropriate that such a procedure applies to infrastructure levy regulations? I would reiterate what I said earlier in terms of the affirmative procedure would be the suitable method here, which I think I said earlier on during the course of this session. Any members have any further questions? I think that in terms of the scrutiny, the extensive consultation that we will undertake the affirmative procedure is the suitable procedure to use, convener. We will come back to you on that and you can reflect further. Any further questions from members? I thank the minister and your officials for attending today. I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow you to leave. Next is agenda item 3, consideration of instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. The draft equality act 2010, authorities subject to socio-economic inequality duty Scotland regulations 2018. Section 1 of the equality act 2010 applies to Scotland, England and Wales, although it is only being commenced in relation to Scotland. Subsection 3 contains a list of authorities that are subject to a duty under subsection 1. Regulation 2-2 substitutes the list of authorities in section 1-3 of the 2010 act. However, the power conferred on Scottish ministers by section 2-4 of the 2010 act permits the addition or removal of relevant authorities from the list of authorities in section 1-3. Accordingly, regulation 2-2 can only have effect to add to the list of authorities in respect of Scottish authorities. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground G as regulation 2-2 has been made by what appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent's statute? No points have been raised by our legal advisors on the draft budget Scotland act 2017 amendment regulations 2018 and the draft carers Scotland act 2016 adult carers and young carers identification of outcomes and needs for support regulations 2018. Is the committee content with these instruments? Agenda item 4 is consideration of instruments subject to the negative procedure. Carers Scotland act 2016 review of adult carers support plan and young carers statement regulations 2018 SSI 33. Regulation 4 defines what a material impact on the care provided by a carer may include for the purposes of regulations 2D and 3F. There is no regulation 2D or 3F. The only references to material impact in the instrument are contained in regulation 2C and 3C. Given the meaninglessness of the reference to regulations 2D and 3F, the committee could recommend that the error should be corrected by means of an amendment. Does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground as there is a drafting error in the instrument? No points have been raised by our advisors on SSI 2018 28 29 31 32 37 47 49 50 57. Is the committee content with these instruments? Agenda item 5 consideration of instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure and no points have been raised by our legal advisors on SSI 2018 36 56. Is the committee content with these? Agenda item 6 consideration of the Government's response to the committee's stage 1 report of the island Scotland bill. The committee queried why the powers in section 7 3 did not include a power to amend the schedule by modifying an entry. The committee considered that to include this power would be consistent with the approach taken in earlier provisions such as in section 6 2 of the British Sign Language Scotland Act 2015. The committee therefore recommended that a consistent approach should be taken to the drafting of this power unless there is a good reason not to include the power to modify an entry. The Government accepted the committee's recommendation and indicated that it would bring forward amendments at stage 2. Does the committee welcome the Government's response to its stage 1 report on the bill? I will now move the meeting into private session.