The Convener

I welcome Liam McArthur, who has joined us to observe the session on the Islands (Scotland) Bill, which is the subject of item 2. This is the first evidence session on the bill, and I welcome from the Scottish Government Ian Turner, who is the team leader for community empowerment; Darren Dickson, who is a policy officer; and Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre, who is a solicitor.

The committee has various questions. The first, which will develop theme 1, will be asked by the deputy convener, Gail Ross.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

Good morning. To start us off, will you comment on the development of the bill, including the involvement of the our islands, our future campaign?

The Convener

If whoever wants to answer looks at me, I will bring you in. It looks as though Darren Dickson has been nominated.

Darren Dickson (Scottish Government)

I will take the question, given that I have been involved longest with the Government’s islands policy work. I will try not to repeat what is in the bill documents and the helpful Scottish Parliament information centre briefing.

The bill’s origins date back to 2014, when the Government produced the prospectus “Empowering Scotland’s Island Communities”. That was the first time that the Government signalled its commitment to look at bringing forward an islands bill. It led to the consultation in 2015, which talked about the provisions that would be in a future bill. In 2016, we made a programme for government announcement that committed the Government to introducing the bill that we are discussing today.

It is probably fair to say that the catalyst for the work that we are doing through the bill was the launch of the our islands, our future campaign by the three wholly island councils back in June 2013. Since then, the Government has worked closely with those three island councils—first and foremost through the island areas ministerial working group. Latterly, we have brought into the new islands strategic group the other three councils that have responsibility for island communities—North Ayrshire Council, Highland Council and Argyll and Bute Council. That is where we are today.

The Government is keen to ensure that the bill is about all inhabited islands. That is partly why ministers decided, last August, to bring the other three councils round the table. We have worked closely with them through the islands strategic group, and they have helped us to shape and develop the bill. That work will continue as the bill progresses through its parliamentary journey and beyond in the drafting of regulations for the implementation of the national islands plan.

The current islands minister, Mr Yousaf, and his predecessor, Mr Mackay, have spent a great deal of time in not just speaking to the councils but getting out and about around the country, meeting island communities and speaking to them about the bill as well as engaging with them on wider island issues. I know that the committee was recently on Mull, and it was useful to read the information about that on the committee’s web pages. We are getting out and engaging with people on the bill as much as we can.

Gail Ross

Quite a lot has changed, given the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union. Has the approach to the bill changed since the Brexit vote?

Darren Dickson

It is probably fair to say that the approach has not changed. The Brexit vote was last summer and the bill was announced only in September last year, so it has been running alongside the Brexit process. I imagine that the bill process will conclude in advance of any Brexit outcome, so it will be difficult to see any impact on the bill. We do not expect any significant or dramatic changes to the bill because of Brexit, although I do not want to prejudge any amendments that might be lodged at stages 2 and 3.

If the bill is passed with commitments to provisions for island proofing and a national islands plan, those are probably the areas in which the outcomes of Brexit might be addressed, as future legislation that is required will have to be island proofed and commitments will be made in the national islands plan.

Gail Ross

Are any issues that were raised in the pre-bill campaigning not in the bill as it has been introduced?

Darren Dickson

The bill is pretty much what was consulted on. The 2014 prospectus made a commitment to consider extending the powers under the Orkney County Council Act 1974 and the Zetland County Council Act 1974. Having looked at that with solicitors, colleagues across other offices and Marine Scotland, we think that it is clear that extending those acts would be difficult, partly because they are private acts and partly because how we handle legislation has changed over the past 40 years.

The provision in the bill is for a marine licensing scheme. I imagine that the committee will have questions on that, so I will not go into further detail now.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I have just a minor point. When the bill was prepared, was it a unanimous view that Skye should be included? The bill says that bridges should be ignored, but surely Skye does not have the problems with ferries and other transport that real islands do.

Members: Oh!

The Convener

I will let the witnesses gather their thoughts on that and how the bridge was taken into account. I am sure that we all agree that Skye is a real island.

Darren Dickson

This is quite a surprising issue. We have been asked three times whether Skye is covered by the bill, so people must not be reading the explanatory notes, which clearly state that Skye is included. The basis for that is that it is an inhabited island—according to the 2011 census, there are about 993 inhabited islands, and Skye is on that list.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I will follow that up. Really remote areas on the mainland have all the same issues as the islands have—particularly Skye, given that it has a road bridge. Someone who is on an island relies on the ferries to get from A to B, but Skye does not have that problem. Many remote rural areas on the mainland have problems that are equal to those of the islands, so where do they fit into the bill, if at all?

Darren Dickson

Not at all is the answer to your question. It is a bill on the islands—that is what we were asked to draft and introduce and that is what we have done. I acknowledge your point about issues for remote rural locations on the mainland, but we are working within the scope of a bill that addresses the islands.

The Convener

The point is made.

Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)

I understand that the bill relates to the islands, but do you envisage it having any positive knock-on effects for the rural communities that Peter Chapman mentioned?

Darren Dickson

I imagine that it will. Island proofing and the national islands plan are key elements of the bill. Island proofing will have implications for our health boards, and many of our islands health boards have close links with mainland health boards, so it will probably tighten up that working relationship. It is not for me to comment, but the success or otherwise of island proofing may lead the Government to consider its approach to other areas.

The Convener

Before we move on, I remind the committee that when we have taken evidence, a lot of remote communities have said that they feel that they are islands, just as much as island communities are. That issue is specifically outwith the bill’s scope, but I am sure that there will be questions on it as a result of the evidence, which we will direct to the minister when he comes to the committee.

After Stewart Stevenson comes in, we will move on to the second theme, which Rhoda Grant will lead.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

In planning, there is a series of definitions of communities. I will focus on remote rural communities, which, if I recall correctly, are defined as communities of fewer than 10,000 people that are more than 30 minutes’ travel away from a community of more than 10,000. That captures every island that is proposed to be covered, but it would also capture places such as Campbeltown.

In drawing up the policy and drafting the bill, what consideration was given to using existing definitions that are used for a wide variety of purposes in local and national Government? That would mean that the word “island” was not wholly appropriate, but it would suggest a similar policy intention of protecting remote communities and supporting them in a proper way.

The Convener

I apologise to Darren Dickson—I am going to be rude and jump in. Stewart, I totally take your point, but can I ask you to hold that question until the minister comes? It is important that he is the one who answers such questions.

Stewart Stevenson

I am entirely content to do that because the question is now on the record, but I point out that I framed it in relation to the formulation of the policy.

The Convener

I totally understand. Christine Grahame said when somebody asked a question yesterday that that was a clever way of doing it. I accept the premise and will make sure that you get a chance to ask the minister.

Stewart Stevenson

Thank you very much.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The bill is largely enabling legislation but, as I speak to constituents, I know that there is a huge amount of expectation about it. I fear that it will be a huge disappointment, because I can see nothing tangible that will come out of it. Everything will follow after, but the bill will make no real difference when it is enacted. Is that the case or will people see something tangible as an outcome of the bill?

Ian Turner (Scottish Government)

You are right to say that the bill provides a framework for action in the future in relation to national islands planning and particularly for island proofing. Island proofing is designed to ensure that the interests and needs of island communities are placed at the centre of future legislation, policies, strategy, and service design and delivery.

Although the bill is hard to connect to tangible local actions, it will certainly have an impact. It will ensure that island communities are involved in the decision-making processes early enough to have an impact on what happens in their communities. What that impact is and what the future policies and strategies will be is obviously hard for me to say, but that will come through the actions that are taken over time.

Rhoda Grant

The national islands plan has the potential to make a difference, but would it have been possible to have a plan without the legislation?

Ian Turner

We could have had the plan without legislation—that would have been the alternative to legislation. However, we thought that the rigour, transparency, scrutiny—particularly by Parliament and others, including island communities themselves—of the work being undertaken by the Government and the consultation that legislation would require would produce a different level of impact from that of just having a national plan that was designed by ministers. Having the plan in statute means not only that the Government will have to prepare the plan following the passage of the bill but that it will have to review the plan after five years and keep it going.

The bill is not just for now; as Darren Dickson said, it will maintain the momentum that arose from the our islands, our future campaign. That led into the different groups that ministers formed and then into the bill, which will keep the momentum going so that island communities continue to be a focus in the future. Moving away from having a bill could mean that the priority changed and that the Government moved on to something else. With a bill, that cannot happen, because the statute means that the measures must be in place.

09:15  

Rhoda Grant

What do you envisage will be in the national islands plan? What additional powers will there be for islands in relation to, for example, transport, digital connectivity and control over the marine environment? What is the expectation?

Ian Turner

As the bill says, the purpose of the plan is to set out

“the main objectives and strategy of the Scottish Ministers in relation to improving outcomes for island communities”.

We do not set out in detail what should be in the plan. That is partly because one of the first things that we will need to do is consult the people who are interested in and will be affected by the bill. In doing that, we will find out people’s priorities, which we will get into the plan.

There will be all the big issues that we would expect to see in the plan—transport, health, digital connectivity and so on—but what that will mean for powers or commitments that might be given will come up during the consultation process. It would be wrong for me to sit in Edinburgh and say, “These will be the priorities of islands in the future.”

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I get the impression from speaking to folk in island communities that, although people were excited about and welcomed the bill’s introduction, there is, as Rhoda Grant said, a great deal of disappointment about the lack of content and specifically about the lack of an overall objective in the bill. Will you comment on that? For example, is it the bill’s purpose to grow the population or facilitate economic regeneration? People have commented that there are few overarching aims or ambitions in the bill. Given that we could do much of what the bill does without having a bill, is it just a bill for a bill’s sake?

Ian Turner

I do not think that it is just a bill for a bill’s sake. The national islands plan is about

“improving outcomes for island communities”.

Just one aim, such as increasing the population, might not capture the different needs of all the islands across Scotland. Not all islands necessarily have a depopulation issue; some do and some do not.

Rather than prioritise one overriding issue over others, the national islands plan needs to cover the issues that arise across the islands and to ensure that the Government and its partners in local authorities and health boards are part of the plan. It is about bringing the partners together so that there is an overall strategy and an overall objective.

Things might change over time. An objective that is relevant now might not be relevant in 10 or 15 years’ time and might need to be changed. The bill’s purpose is to make sure that we maintain a focus, now and in the future, on islands issues.

Jamie Greene

Is there a worry that we are missing a trick by not specifying the issues that affect island communities? Those issues are long standing and will not go away overnight or even in 10 years’ time—I am thinking about access to healthcare, affordable transport, affordable housing and all the other things that we have heard about from people who have given evidence to us.

Do we have a unique opportunity to use primary legislation to ensure that the minister or Government of the day will address those issues, rather than leave things wide open by referring to a strategy, the contents of which we have no idea about? Do island communities not deserve an opportunity to have such issues properly addressed through the bill, rather than left to the minister?

Ian Turner

The bill could contain a list of issues that must be included in the islands plan. It would have to be a non-exhaustive list, because issues that we do not anticipate now could arise during the consultation or in the future.

I think that you are right to expect transport and digital connectivity to be in the plan, but I am not sure to what extent requiring their inclusion would change things; this is about what ministers say about the issues and the objective of bringing things together as a whole.

The minister has always made it clear when he has talked about the bill that he is open to ways in which it might be improved. If the committee feels that particular issues should be in there, he will be more than willing to consider them.

The Convener

I will bring in Liam McArthur, briefly.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

Thank you, convener. I will follow up the comments made by Jamie Greene and Rhoda Grant. I do not necessarily have an issue with the legislation being enabling—it is about enabling island communities. I am happy to share with colleagues my perspective on why islands are different from mainland remote communities and how the benefits of island proofing could spill out to the ways in which policies develop and legislation impacts those remote communities.

However, there is a sense of expectation about what the bill will achieve. Rhoda Grant is quite right to say that there is a serious risk that the legislation will not match that expectation. People have a clear view of how island proofing would be valuable in dealing with the problems that they face because of the way in which policy and legislation have been developed and implemented. What capacity will there be through the bill—from the minister’s intentions, based on your dealings with him—to look at existing examples of how legislation and policy work against the interests of islands, and to take early measures to address them? Promises on what will happen in the future can best be evidenced by a demonstration of a willingness to use island proofing and the purposes behind the bill to address some of the concerns that are real and present now.

Ian Turner

The bill is not retrospective, particularly in terms of island proofing; it is about future legislation, policies, strategies and services. That does not just mean when new policies are being developed but when they are redesigned or revised, so that other issues can come in—there are already many different routes. The bill raises the profile of a lot of the issues that members have talked about and how they can be addressed. The Government is willing and open to look at whatever we may do to bring forward the issue of what might be the appropriate route to make those changes. For example, if a health issue on a particular island needs to be looked at because the regulations do not quite work for the island, ministers are more willing than ever to look at how to adapt and change what is there.

The idea of island proofing is that one size will not necessarily fit all in future, particularly with regard to legislation. We might need to tweak legislation or make sure that it focuses on island issues in a particular way. That applies not just to primary legislation; it includes secondary legislation, where a lot of the detail of how we deliver policy is often given. Ministers are more than willing to consider what options might apply, but the bill as it stands is about the future of island proofing; it is not retrospective in the way that has been raised.

Rhoda Grant

The more that I hear, the more puzzled I become. The three island councils are clear about being empowered and getting decision-making powers that they do not have at the moment. They have the infrastructure to deliver decisions about transport, connectivity, planning the marine environment and so on. The island councils can preside over such matters and deal with them. Smaller islands, such as Barra, Westray, Unst and Mull—which the committee visited—are talking about being empowered over such things as education, care in the community and healthcare.

I do not know how you can draw up an islands plan that meets all those expectations in those very different areas. Some island groups have the infrastructure to deal with such things, but how can small islands that do not have a council and are perhaps lucky to have an active community council take those powers and use them? If they cannot, does that mean that no island community will get those powers?

The Convener

From the evidence that we have heard about islands, that question cuts to the chase.

Ian Turner

The bill needs to be seen alongside a lot of other work that is being done. For example, I do a lot of work in community empowerment and implementation of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

You mentioned Mull. There is a fantastic development trust there, which is doing a lot of work in and for the community. The bill is not necessarily what the trust needs to enable it to do things; it is about it owning its own land and making decisions in its own way. Members are right that, whether the trust uses participation requests through the 2015 act to get involved in the council’s decision-making processes or the asset transfer powers to get more land that it can develop for its own purposes, the bill will not in itself matter too much. However, the overall strategy on the islands probably will matter to it.

If we talk about the Crown estate, which will be addressed in a separate bill, or the local democracy bill, which was mentioned in the programme for government last week, the question is what powers will be relevant to local authorities and communities in future and how they will be used. Ensuring that islands have their voice in those processes and ensuring that the Crown estate bill and local democracy bill are island proofed will be essential in ensuring that the powers go down to the people who can use them.

The Convener

Mike Rumbles will start us off on our next theme.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

The theme is about island proofing. When we took informal evidence on Mull, communities told us that they were concerned that island proofing must not turn into a tick-box exercise. How will you ensure that that does not happen?

Looking at the 60-odd organisations that are mentioned in the schedule to the bill, I can imagine a situation in which one of them—let us not name any particular organisation—simply says, “Right, how does this affect the islands? Oh, that’s fine,” and ticks the box. The people on Mull suggested to us that the only way in which we can really island proof is that, when any of those organisations wants to do something, it should consult the islanders. That does not seem to have been highlighted in the bill. Would a good way forward be to put something in the bill to say that those organisations should consult islanders on new initiatives?

Ian Turner

The bill sets out the general duty on those organisations to have regard to island communities when they exercise their functions. That is the overall duty and, if there is going to be a significant difference, they must do an island communities impact assessment.

The bill also provides that the 60-plus public bodies in the schedule must have regard to any guidance from Scottish ministers on that duty. We need to consult on that guidance and go through the process of putting it together, which will include islanders. We expect that the guidance will set out what the authorities will need to do consistently and transparently, including publishing information and consulting islanders. That is how they will need to comply with the duty.

There could be a lot of detail in the guidance, including about how public bodies might comply with the duty. We will always want a degree of local discretion for public authorities in how they do that. We do not want to say that they must do it in a certain way at all times because that may well lead to a tick-box approach. We need to be able to provide authorities with the ability to innovate, do things differently and consult islanders when they need to.

We expect consultation to be a key part of the process. We always consult when we do legislation. We always consult before we do a bill. Therefore, we expect the guidance to highlight when consultation will need to take place with islanders, including the need to ask the initial question whether a proposal will make a difference to islanders, before the public body even needs to think about doing an impact assessment. That will enable islanders to get in at the start of the consultation.

Mike Rumbles

I am not suggesting that you should be prescriptive about how it has to be done. You say that consultation could be part of the process, but should it not be a necessary part of it when those 60-odd organisations implement change? Some of the residents on Mull from whom we heard expressed their fear that the impact assessments are made in Edinburgh, Glasgow or wherever and do not deal with what happens on the ground in Mull. That is the experience of members of the public on Mull.

09:30  

Ian Turner

Yes. Partly because that is the current experience, you would hope that, when island proofing comes in, it will not only put a legal duty on organisations but will also be about a culture change in how they do business. Community empowerment is often about ensuring that communities have the ability to participate in the decision-making process, and this is part of that. However, we do not want to make it overly complex for public bodies to do things—as you say, to be too prescriptive—because that tends to lead to more of a tick-box process in which they can just say that they have done what is required and think that, because they have sort of spoken to the communities, they can go ahead. That is not what this is about. Putting the requirement to consult in guidance gives us the flexibility to take a case-studies approach and show people what best practice is, which will come out during the process.

Mike Rumbles

Will the guidance say that public bodies must consult local people in the islands?

Ian Turner

At the moment, I cannot say what the guidance will say.

Mike Rumbles

That is the problem, is it not?

Ian Turner

That is partly because we have to consult on it and ensure that what is in the guidance is what people want.

Mike Rumbles

I understand, but that is the crux of the problem.

The Convener

When the bill was being drafted, the bill team and the minister must have considered the implications of island-proofing decisions, and any person who considered those implications must have considered their cost and would have had an idea of how much it was going to cost to island proof future legislation. However, I have not seen any indication of what that cost will be. What will it cost the Scottish Government on an annual basis to island proof its decisions? Do you have an estimate of that, or will the cost be met by councils as they implement decisions? I think that councils do not find it easy to estimate that cost.

Does Darren Dickson want to answer those questions, or is it still Ian Turner?

Ian Turner

I think that it is still me.

The Convener

Darren is probably thankful for that.

Ian Turner

The financial memorandum sets out the cost of the bill’s implementation and the on-going cost of incorporating island proofing into the decision-making process.

The Convener

I understand that, and we are going to ask questions about that, but that is not what I am asking about. You have asked people to come up with an islands plan and they are going to do that. You must have had some idea of what was going to be in the islands plan. I am asking you how much it will cost the Government to ensure that the islands plan is implemented.

Ian Turner

Given the process that we have to go through, there are too many variables to say what the implications will be. The bill requires that, in producing any new legislation, policy or strategy, the Government must consider whether it will have a significantly different impact on the islands. If it will have, the Government must carry out an impact assessment that will draw out the features of that impact.

I cannot predict what the future plans will be—what the Government will do each time—therefore, I cannot predict what the impact assessments will find. However, as part of an impact assessment, the Government will have to set out whether it can improve or mitigate the outcomes if the policy could have a negative impact on the islands. That will be part of the process. It is very difficult to predict what the outcome—and, therefore, the cost—of every new policy strategy or piece of legislation will be. In fact, it is probably impossible to do that.

The Convener

I understand that. The danger is that people on the islands will expect the Government to island proof its policy, which is going to cost a lot of money, but at this stage we have no indication of what that is going to cost.

Ian Turner

I do not think that it will cost a lot of money if we do it properly—if we incorporate it into the consultation process, which we have just discussed, and if we figure out what impact the policy will have on the islands through an impact assessment. We do a lot of these things already; we just do not talk about the process in quite this way. The bill will make the process much clearer and more consistent, and how we reach decisions will be much more transparent. Whether that will incur additional costs in what we do is hard to say at the moment, but it should just be part of the process.

The Convener

Okay. However, I stand by the fact that people on the islands will expect to have the same ability as people on the mainland to receive medical care, for example, and that there will be a cost to that.

John Mason

I would like to pursue the theme of island proofing. Will consideration be given to looking retrospectively at previous legislation, plans or anything like that, or is this purely about island proofing going forward?

Ian Turner

As I mentioned to Mr McArthur, as it stands, the bill is about the future and there is no retrospective element to it.

Mike Rumbles

You said that it was impossible to judge whether it would cost any more money. However, as the convener said, there is an expectation that, if the policy is to make any difference rather than being a tick-box exercise, there will need to be extra funding for the islands, which will not be needed on the mainland, to implement the policy in regard to certain issues. In the forthcoming Scottish Government budget, will there be a budget line for the bill with regard to island proofing, other than in the financial memorandum?

Ian Turner

I cannot say at the moment.

The Convener

I have one further question before we move on. If a model is developed for island proofing to encourage a consistent approach to be taken by all public bodies, what do you envisage would happen to a public body if it failed to comply with the approach that is laid down in the bill and in the plan?

Ian Turner

With regard to compliance, each public body will be under the new legal duty to perform island proofing on all its functions as it comes through. Public bodies that fail to comply with their legal duties will be held accountable through their normal accountability arrangements. For example, ministers are accountable to Parliament and to the electorate; in performing their functions, local authorities are accountable to their councillors and to local communities; and, with regard to the accountability arrangements that will come through, other bodies are the same. That is where the compliance aspect will come in.

The Convener

We move on to the next set of questions.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Good morning. You have heard about the themes that everyone is talking about. I will turn to constituency boundaries.

Under schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998, Orkney and Shetland are fixed as two of the 73 Scottish constituencies. The parliamentary constituency that takes in the Western Isles does not currently have that protection, but section 13 of the bill will provide it. However, there are islands in different local authorities where the people feel overlooked and forgotten about. They feel that what has happened on the mainland has not been replicated or taken care of in the islands.

If we have councils of varying sizes, why can we not have a further islands authority? Has any thought been given to the constituency and local authority structure of island groups? One of my colleagues is going to ask questions about members shortly, so I would like you to contain your reply to the islands. People in Mull feel that they are forgotten about, so should we not have another authority that would take in all the islands? It would be stretching it quite a bit, but people would then feel that their particular island was being looked after.

Darren Dickson

The commitment for the Western Isles stems back to the prospectus in 2014, and it was a specific ask of the Western Isles at that time. For the past couple of years, the Scottish Government has not had the power to act on it, but, under the Scotland Act 2016, the power has been transferred from Westminster to Holyrood and we now have the ability to deliver on the commitment that was made in 2014. That is why the focus is on doing that for the Western Isles. Some would say that it is an anomaly that Orkney and Shetland have that protection at both Westminster and Holyrood but the Western Isles has it only at Westminster, and that is why the Government is delivering it.

I will deal with the question of constituencies first and will come on to local authorities. The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland undertakes reviews of constituencies for the Scottish Parliament, and I believe that it will carry out another review of the Holyrood boundaries in the not-too-distant future. It might make recommendations for changes in that regard, but I am not sure about that. The committee will speak to the boundary commission soon, and you might want to raise that point.

I take your point about local authorities, but my current understanding—this may be more a point for the minister to answer—is that the Government has no intention of considering local authority boundary changes at present. Ultimately, it would have to be a Government decision.

Richard Lyle

Have you ever dealt with the Electoral Commission?

Darren Dickson

Do you mean the Electoral Commission or the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland?

Richard Lyle

I mean the boundary commission in relation to changing boundaries. I dealt with it several times and it is not easy to get it to go along with a change even when a boundary passes down a street and then goes off at a tangent. However, I will park that issue. Is there no thought of creating an islands authority?

Darren Dickson

No, not under the bill.

The Convener

Fulton, do you want to address that local authority point?

Fulton MacGregor

My questions follow on from Richard Lyle’s point about constituency boundaries, but I will move on to the member wards. We heard a wee bit of evidence on the issue when we were in Mull and had quite an interesting debate with the local authority there. Do you have any indication of how that idea might work? There is talk of having one or two councillors for an island if it is populated. From what I heard, that might be a good idea. Have you any idea how that system might work in practice and how long it would take to implement?

Darren Dickson

At this time, we do not have any indication of that. The main reason for that is that, assuming that the bill is passed, the Local Government Boundary Commission will be asked to undertake reviews of the six local authority areas that will be impacted and bring back recommendations for ministers. The expectation is that the recommendations could be implemented in time for the next local government elections, in 2022. The Local Government Boundary Commission would have to do that work, and we would get an indication from that.

Fulton MacGregor

Are the recommendations likely to include considerations such as the number of local councillors, whether that number is likely to change, the practicalities of how councillors might travel between islands and so on?

Darren Dickson

Yes. The Local Government Boundary Commission would make the recommendations, and I assume that it would take into account the logistics of travel. I might be wrong about this, but I think that, although Mull has a councillor at the moment, Tiree does not. We met the people from Tiree—the minister was there recently—and the issue was quite close to their hearts. They felt that they lacked a connection with the local authority because they did not have a councillor on Tiree. However, Tiree has a very small population. We will have to look at that as well.

Fulton MacGregor

Yes, we met the councillor who lives on Mull and she took part in the evidence session that we held, which was good.

The Convener

We will move on to the next theme. Peter Chapman is going to lead on that.

Peter Chapman

My questions are about marine development. The bill provides a regulation-making power for Scottish ministers to establish a marine licensing scheme for development activities. I wonder what “development activity” means in practice and what powers are envisaged. Will the provision for marine development licensing apply to all Scotland’s islands?

Ian Turner

Section 16(1) of the bill sets out what “development activity” means:

“(a) construction, alteration or improvement works of any description (either in or over the sea, or on or under the seabed)”

and also

“(b) any form of dredging (whether or not involving the removal of any material from the sea or seabed).”

That is the encompassing form of what “development activity” means. The regulations can provide for exemptions within that, and specific exemptions that are not development activities are set out in section 16(2). That covers the specifics.

On whether the provision will apply to all Scotland’s islands, the bill provides for an iterative process. It requires a local authority that has inhabited islands to apply for a designation to be made to ministers, so it would be for the local authority that wished to have more control in the seas around its islands to apply for that designation. That would kick off a process that would include the requirement that ministers consult before bringing any draft regulations for Parliament to look at.

In theory, the provision could apply to all Scotland’s islands. However, in practice it will often depend on whether the local authority wants to take on the new powers.

Peter Chapman

Obviously, there will be further consultation. What is your timescale for that process?

Ian Turner

That would depend on when the application for designation was made. When a local authority submitted an application, we would have to consult on that, and there could be six different applications coming forward at different times or there could be more coming forward at the same time—we do not know. It would depend on what the local authorities wanted to do.

Peter Chapman

Will it be possible under the new powers for local authorities to say something about fishing activity around a particular island, or is that outwith the scope of the bill?

09:45  

Ian Turner

The provision is specifically about construction, alteration and improvement works; it is not really about fishing. However, anything that is built in the sea could cause navigation issues, and that is where fishing might come into it. Fish farms are also excluded from that activity.

Peter Chapman

Fish farms are excluded.

Ian Turner

Yes, because they are covered under the planning regime. They are also excluded from the Zetland County Council Act 1974, which is where we took the process from.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I accept that they are two completely unrelated issues, but I wonder whether you have had regard to the experience of marine protected areas and how they might interact with that provision.

Ian Turner

In this part of the bill, we have tried to give a practical impact to what we meant by extending the powers of the Zetland County Council Act 1974. Once the regulations are in place and the consultation is done, the provision will have to be developed in relation to all the things that already exist, including the national marine plan, marine protected areas and any local marine planning that might already be in place. It will need to fit into that structure, but I cannot say at this stage what will need to be done, because we need to work through the process.

The Convener

Let us move on to the financial implications of the bill with a question from John Mason.

John Mason

I realise that we have already touched on finance through questions from the convener and from Mr Rumbles, but I would like to press the officials a little more on what the financial impact of the bill will be. I understand, from what I have heard so far, that there will be a plan and that there will be more of an onus on the Government, local authorities and others to consider the impact of decisions on the islands. However, if that is as far as it goes, I struggle to understand how the people on the islands will be greatly advantaged.

I was impressed by the representatives of Argyll and Bute Council when we met them. They know that there is no care home on Mull. They have thought about that and realise that there would be a cost to putting a care home on Mull. They know that the situation is having an impact on the community, because when people want to visit their relatives in a care home they have to go to the mainland. Nevertheless, having thought about it, the council has decided that the costs prohibit it. I therefore struggle to see what difference there will be in the future if there is no money to put a care home on Mull and all that we are telling councils to do is think about putting a care home on Mull.

Ian Turner

People are aware of the care issues on Mull and their implications. Island proofing is also about ensuring that other issues that might not be quite as clear or as thought through are thought through. However, you are right to say that the bill does not require local authorities to do something as a result of that. It would be quite onerous for them if, once they had done an assessment, they always had to do what they assessed was necessary. There could be quite a lot of cost involved in that. The bill puts a clear, transparent and—most important—consistent system in place so that people are at least aware of those issues and can start to tackle them in different ways.

John Mason

That answers my question. Thank you.

The Convener

That will be an interesting issue to deal with.

Jamie Greene

My question follows on from what John Mason has said. It is about a worry—which has probably been picked up over the course of this evidence session—that the bill does not require anyone to do anything other than create a plan and that island proofing does not require anyone to do anything other than consider. There is no budget indicated anywhere in the bill or the financial memorandum that would benefit the islands in a true and proper sense, nor does the bill empower local authorities to do additional things that they are not able to do at the moment, either through legislation or via additional finance.

That relates back to my earlier point about whether the bill goes far enough. Is the bill just enabling legislation or should it go further? Is there an opportunity for us to propose further measures to make the bill stronger, so that it will bring meaningful change to the island communities?

The Convener

I am sorry, Jamie, but I am going to do the same as I did with the previous question. What you have asked about is something that we need to push the minister on, because it goes to the nub of the problem. If Ian Turner or Darren Dickson wants to offer a short answer to Jamie Greene’s question, I am happy to take it, but they might feel that the minister is a better person to answer it.

Ian Turner

I think that the issue is what consideration might be given. The minister is probably the most appropriate person to ask about that because what Jamie Greene asks about the bill relates to the framework for providing that things can take place. The future actions that there will be thereafter are not necessarily a matter for the bill, because there are wider considerations. There is other relevant legislation, and other processes are taking place that the bill’s provisions will impact on, because it will make clear what needs to be done in those processes and how that might be done. There will be plenty of opportunity to talk about the finances that might be required within the Crown Estate or within local democracy for any changes and power shifts that might come from the bill.

The Convener

I have a direct question on the financial memorandum. There is an estimated cost of £142,000 over the first five years of the implementation of the bill’s provisions to draw up the islands plan—have I got that right?

Ian Turner

Yes. We estimate that it will cost £100,000 every five years to prepare the plan, which will involve staff time and administrative costs. The annual progress update will cost £8,400, and adding the cost of that over five years to the £100,000 gives us the figure of £142,000.

The Convener

What strikes me about the consultation is that, although there might be overarching issues for the islands, each island has individual issues that are critically important to it. Given the number of inhabited islands that there are around Scotland, £142,000 will not go very far—especially if the Government gets to use the residue of that money to come up with an overarching plan.

Ian Turner

That is the administrative cost of the plan, but it is not necessarily the cost of any actions that might arise from it.

The Convener

I understand that that cost is nothing to do with the actions. Nevertheless, if you are going to use consultants or experts to prepare the plan, the money will amount to a lot less than £10,000 per island. That is not a big figure, and some of the bigger islands will have more complex problems and will require a more complex plan. Are you sure that you have got those figures right? My personal experience of drawing up plans in the private sector tells me that that figure is way off target.

Ian Turner

We base the figure on the costs of the national plans and other large plans that the Government has costed in administrative terms.

The Convener

I understand your answer, but I reserve my position on that.

I invite Liam McArthur to make a final point.

Liam McArthur

I have heard the discussion about the financial memorandum. From my perspective, island proofing will expose the issue and, if there is a case for additional funding, it will make that case more compelling. I therefore have less of a problem with the figures in some respects.

However, the bill will need to demonstrate its mettle in those areas where there is not necessarily a financial cost and the irritation is that the way in which legislation has been formulated and enforced, or the way in which policies have been developed and implemented, has a cost for island users—whether island businesses or households—because, although it makes sense in a mainland or urban context, it makes no sense in an island context. The notion is that the bill is only about developing things that will cost money, but, from my perspective—I presume that this will be part of the development of the bill—there is an expectation that the bill will reduce costs in some instances by making policy and legislation apply in a more rational and commonsense way in island communities and, indeed, remote communities on mainland Scotland.

Ian Turner

I think that that is the case, but it is a difficult case to make because we do not have any examples to use, which is why it is not referred to in the financial memorandum. I do not think that we could provide a reasonable estimate of what any savings might be. However, as I said previously, the bill is getting away from the idea that one size fits all.

If, at the moment, there are costs that can be adapted and changed for the islands so that the cost to the authority or, in particular, the cost to service users or whoever the policy, strategy or services are affecting is lower, that is a good thing. We may reduce those costs and that may have an impact on those people’s day-to-day lives.

The Convener

Thank you. That is the end of our questions. I just want to clarify something that I said about the amount of money that will be available for each of the inhabited islands. It is not £10,000 per island for each plan, but £1,000 per island. To me, that will not even scratch the surface.

I thank Ian Turner and Darren Dickson very much for their attendance. I am afraid that Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre did not get in, but I thank her very much for attending.

I suspend the meeting for four minutes to enable a changeover of witnesses and to allow the cabinet secretary to take his place.

09:56 Meeting suspended.  

10:01 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion S5M-10358, on stage 1 of the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

The Minister for Transport and the Islands (Humza Yousaf)

I am delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the Islands (Scotland) Bill. It is fair to say that being transport minister does not make me the most popular person on the planet, but my colleagues and members from across the parties envy the islands part of my portfolio. I am envied when I travel across Scotland, seeing some of the most stunning scenery and the most beautiful places in which to live in what is a naturally beautiful country, which for me is a great honour and privilege. Our islands are wonderful places in which to live, work and study, and to visit, and they contribute so much to Scotland. It is vital that Parliament acknowledges the unique role that they play in our identity, economy and society.

Since becoming the minister with responsibility for the islands and their communities, I have been struck by not only their geographical differences but their strong similarities. They share a resilience, vibrancy and warmth and, thanks to everyone who lives on them, our islands are welcoming and open.

Nevertheless, there are challenges. On every island to which I travel there is a common thread of issues. Anyone who lives on, travels to or represents our islands will recognise the common challenges: remoteness, transport, digital connectivity, housing, health and many other issues, which can all work together to contribute to the issue of declining populations.

The Scottish Government has been working in partnership with others to address many of those challenges through a range of policy initiatives and investment. They include investment of more than £1 billion in ferry services, including the budget proposal for £10.5 million for Orkney and Shetland internal ferry services; investment of £25 million in the rural housing fund and £5 million in the islands housing fund to deliver affordable homes; fuel poverty—Liam McArthur has mentioned that that is a huge issue for the Orkney islands—and energy efficiency programmes, with more than £16 million invested in island council areas; more than £270 million invested in airport facilities across the Highlands and Islands, with investment of more than £60 million in the air discount scheme; and the recently announced £6 million for the rural tourism infrastructure fund. I can speak more about some of those in my closing speech.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

I am grateful to the minister for referring to fuel poverty, which is experienced at the highest level in the Orkney Islands community. It is a policy area where island proofing now would be beneficial. He will be aware of the issue, as I have raised it with him and his ministerial colleagues. Will he reconsider the committee’s recommendation to apply island proofing retrospectively to some of the most egregious examples of where policy and legislation are not working for islands? It would be a sensible move.

Humza Yousaf

I thought that that point might come up, and I will address it later in my speech. It is fair to say that the committee recommendation was not to take a blanket retrospective approach to legislation, but to consider specific examples. Perhaps there is a way in which we can work closely to identify those examples and see whether we can come to a common solution. I will come to that in more detail later.

I want to improve outcomes by creating the right conditions for investment, empowerment and increasing sustainable economic growth. The Islands (Scotland) Bill is part of that, but let us be under no illusion that there is a simple solution, magic bullet or single policy that will make that happen. The measures in the bill, alongside the actions taken by the Government, local authorities, public bodies and communities themselves will contribute to creating the right conditions for growth.

I welcome the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report, which recommends that the Parliament supports the general principles of the bill. I thank members of the REC Committee, and other parliamentary committees, for their thorough scrutiny of the bill.

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee was no doubt helped by its efforts to take evidence from and consult a wide range of organisations and people. I know that meetings took place on Mull, Orkney and the Western Isles, and there was good use of videoconferencing to speak to people in the University of the Highlands and Islands and the people of Arran. It is heartening to see colleagues making it easier for people to participate in the development of a bill through the use of technology. Thanks are due to everyone who took the time to offer their views and experiences to the committee or to us in Government.

Time and time again, I have been encouraged to hear organisations and individuals express confidence that the bill will make a real difference in helping public bodies to look at islands differently. In particular, I thank the local authority leaders and chief executives who have been feeding in their comments and aspirations through the islands strategic group.

It was willingness to collaborate and co-operate that brought forward the bill, and credit must go to the fantastic our islands, our future campaign in that regard. I want to continue that collaboration, good work and engagement with the local authorities and council leaders. I have a good relationship with the leaders of not only the three wholly island councils, but the other three local authorities that have islands within their boundaries.

Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Will the minister give way?

Humza Yousaf

I will first finish my brief point. It would be remiss of me not to give credit to the previous leaders of Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council and the Western Isles Council.

Tavish Scott

Having been beautifully pre-empted, I had better think of something else to ask. The Minister for Transport and the Islands will be well aware of the arrangements for inter-island ferries and of the need to resolve issues related to capital expenditure and revenue expenditure—indeed, he plans to have a working group with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution on those issues. I ask that the person whom he plans to chair that group will be someone who can give it the impetus that is clearly needed by not only the Government but those who use the services daily.

Humza Yousaf

Liam McArthur—my apologies, I meant to say Tavish Scott. I will move on. Tavish Scott makes a very good point. I completely understand that the agreement secured in the budget must be seen very much in tandem with the working group that is looking at longer-term arrangements. We must absolutely take forward that work, and I will take on board his remarks. I have to say that the conversation with the local authority leaders has been incredibly constructive, as it has been with the Liberal Democrat MSPs and members across the chamber. Tavish Scott is absolutely right to raise that point and to put it on the record.

I welcome that, at stage 1, we have already established a broad range of consensus on the bill’s provisions, although that makes me feel slightly nervous about the stages to come. I will always be happy to discuss issues where we have differences and attempt to come up with a common solution, where such a solution can be found.

Part 2 of the bill places a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare, lay before Parliament and publish a national islands plan. The plan will set out the main objectives and strategies for improving outcomes for our island communities. That clear statement of purpose will also allow the Government of the day the flexibility to say what it will do to achieve that purpose. The plan will work alongside existing plans and frameworks, provide a strategic direction, focus resources and, where necessary, set targets for key areas of activity.

As a key component of the bill, the national islands plan has attracted a great deal of comment. The committee has made a number of recommendations about it, and I want to address some of those today.

The committee recommends that high-level objectives are placed in the bill. I appreciate the intent behind that, but we need to be mindful of the purpose of legislation. We make law to give legal effect to things that we want to achieve or, indeed, to prevent. Bills are not necessarily the place to make policy statements. Any overall statement of purpose would need to be legally meaningful to a court, and I am not convinced that that recommendation would achieve that.

However, I want to look at what alternatives are available, to see whether something can be done in, for example, the national islands plan. We can consider lodging amendments that would set out the high-level objectives within the current frame of improving outcomes for island communities. That would seem to have the potential to meet the overall purpose of the committee proposal, and I would be happy to discuss that further with members.

In the Government’s response to the stage 1 report, I said that I will accept the committee’s recommendation to make local authorities statutory consultees and consider other changes, including, for example, a time limit for the submission of the annual progress report, and strengthening of the language regarding consultation with communities.

Part 3, which is on island proofing, has been broadly welcomed and has attracted a lot of discussion and comment during the committee process. The idea is straightforward: we want to ensure that an awareness of the needs and circumstances of our island communities is embedded in the decision-making processes of public bodies. The bill places a duty on public bodies to do that, and it will ensure that the interests of island communities are placed firmly and squarely at the centre of legislative, policy and service considerations. Many members across the chamber have said that Government should already be doing that—indeed, Liam McArthur said that in his intervention. I give members the absolute assurance that that is already happening. A good example of that is the social security legislation that is being taken forward. Although the Islands (Scotland) Bill has not yet been passed, my colleague Jeane Freeman is already looking to island proof where she can.

To help with that, we have included an island communities impact assessment process. An impact assessment must be undertaken where new or revised legislation, policies or, indeed, services will have an effect on islands and our island communities that is significantly different from the effect on other communities. As with other impact assessments, the details of the process will be set out in statutory guidance.

Island proofing has the potential to change the practice, culture and values of our public bodies. I think that every single one of us agrees that we do not want to see a simple tick-box exercise—that was mentioned time and again in the committee’s proceedings. In the words of the committee:

“The process must be agile and fit for purpose”.

The committee has made a number of recommendations on island proofing, and we welcome and agree with most—although not all—of them, as is set out in our response.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

The minister mentioned island proofing. Does he accept that there is a slight difference between island proofing and an island communities impact assessment, and that island proofing might suggest going further than the bill intends to go?

Humza Yousaf

The island communities impact assessment is, of course, the process that would have to be gone through. However, John Mason is absolutely right: it is not necessarily just about the impact assessment itself; it is about changing the entire culture of how we think about implementing legislation not just—this is important—in the Government, but in the 60-plus listed public authorities. John Mason has made a good point in that regard.

On the retrospective ask that some have made—Liam McArthur made it in his intervention—a specific provision in the bill on retrospective island proofing is unnecessary. It could lead to unrealistic demands across a range of policies and legislation that would be difficult to manage, and it would be overly bureaucratic. That would not be legislation that was, in the committee’s words,

“agile and fit for purpose”.

The committee has asked the Government to consider putting an appeals mechanism in the bill. I am concerned that that approach would risk creating the sort of tick-box exercise and culture that I am keen to avoid. Other impact assessments that are set out in legislation, such as equality impact assessments, do not have an appeals process, but they have been incredibly successful. They have worked because they have been clear, flexible and responsive. I seek to achieve that aim for island communities impact assessments. I will ensure that the issue is explored through consultation on the statutory guidance and that a dispute resolution process is developed. We all want the bill to have its intended impact and to focus on improving outcomes to achieve that.

Part 4 has two elements. The securing of a special status for the Western Isles Scottish Parliament constituency has been universally welcomed. The proposal to allow the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland the flexibility to recommend the creation of one or two-member wards consisting of inhabited islands has attracted much more comment. The comments have largely been very positive. I believe that we have the right approach in the bill to allow for greater flexibility, but I accept the argument that has been presented by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland and the committee that a small change to the language in the bill might well increase flexibility further. I have therefore indicated that, in line with the committee’s recommendation, I will amend section 14, to change the wording from “wholly or mainly” to “wholly or partly”.

Part 5 relates to development and the new Scottish island marine area licences. I want all our island local authorities to have the opportunity to build on the experiences of Shetland and Orkney and to have more control over the development of the seas around their islands. We have taken a purposely cautious approach to that part of the bill to ensure that it properly reflects the needs and circumstances of our islands. The bill allows for a local authority with an inhabited island in its area to ask to be designated as a marine development licensing authority and, after consultation, regulations will be laid that set out the details of the scheme.

Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Has consideration been given to the impact of the requirement that the island be inhabited, given that, under the Zetland County Council Act 1974, Shetland Islands Council can regulate in that area without having to meet such a requirement?

Humza Yousaf

Yes, consideration has been given to that issue. I will try to reflect on that in my closing speech. That point was put to me directly during the committee proceedings. Where the Zetland County Council Act 1974 and the Orkney County Council Act 1974 have worked well, we will look to replicate that, but where it is sensible to diverge from the approach that was taken in those acts, we will. The issue of the impacts on uninhabited islands has been considered with particular reference to St Kilda, so we are not unaware of them. As far as marine development licensing is concerned, I will deal with the effect on uninhabited islands in my closing remarks, because I must conclude shortly.

I am proud to be the minister who has introduced the first ever piece of legislation solely for islands in the Scottish Parliament, but I will be even more proud when we manage to get the bill passed into law in a few months’ time, as we hope to do.

I welcome the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s deliberations to date. Its thoughtful approach has been extremely helpful, and I look forward to working with members across the chamber at stages 2 and 3. The Government will keep an open mind, because, ultimately, we want the same as any member: the best outcomes possible for our island communities for the future.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

I call Edward Mountain to open for the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

14:46  

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

On behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I say that we are delighted to present our report on the Islands (Scotland) Bill. Sadly, as time is limited, I will not be able to cover all the points in our report, so I will try to pick out the most salient ones. The committee notes the minister’s detailed response, which we received last Friday.

As part of our evidence gathering, the committee undertook visits to Orkney, Mull and the Western Isles. We took evidence via videoconference from islanders on Arran, as well as from students from multiple locations, including the University of the Highlands and Islands. We want to thank the islanders who met the committee—sometimes on very windy and blustery nights—to share their views. I would also like to thank the committee’s members for their diligence in tackling the task, and the clerks for their hard work in preparing the report.

The committee is very aware of the hopes that islanders have invested in the bill, which were embodied in the our islands, our future campaign, but we are concerned that there will be a gap between what islanders expect and what they will get from the bill. We urge the Scottish Government to manage those expectations carefully.

I turn to our key findings. The committee called on the Scottish Government to review the definitions of the terms “island”, “inhabited island”, “island community” and “high and low tide”, which the Law Society of Scotland feels require further clarification. The committee notes that the Scottish Government has reviewed the definitions, but that it has not, in its response, committed to any undertaking. We look forward to the Government providing a resolution at stage 2.

On the national islands plan, the committee recommended that island communities and other stakeholders be comprehensively consulted so that the plan reflects the priorities of islanders. We note that, in his response, the minister agrees.

The committee also felt that a national islands plan that has an overarching strategy and which takes into account the individual nature of each island is a prerequisite. We believe that that will best be achieved through local decision-making structures, so we recommend that the Scottish Government amend the bill to make the creation of local authority-level island plans a statutory requirement. We welcome the Scottish Government’s agreement to consult the six local authorities involved to seek their views on that recommendation.

The committee acknowledged the importance of the role that uninhabited islands can play in terms of their cultural, economic and environmental significance, so we recommended that uninhabited islands not be left out of the national islands plan. We welcome the Scottish Government’s reassurance that there is nothing to prevent uninhabited islands from featuring in the plan, and that they will feature in consultation.

The purpose of the Islands (Scotland) Bill is to improve outcomes for island communities: we feel that it is important that performance can be tracked. The committee therefore recommended that the national islands plan be developed with clear outcomes and targets, and measurable indicators. We also suggested that a time limit for the annual report be included in the bill. We are therefore pleased that the Government has acknowledged the need for monitoring and assessment of progress.

On island impact assessments, the committee called on the Government to provide clear and consistent terminology. We felt that the terms “island impact assessment” and “island proofing” were used interchangeably in the bill’s supporting documents. Both duties have significantly different meanings, so that confused many of the people whom we consulted. The committee notes the Scottish Government’s view that the terms were not used interchangeably, but we welcome its recognition that clarity and consistency in terminology are important, and we welcome the fact that it will ensure that the consultation and guidance around the duty are clear.

The committee and islanders are adamant that the island impact assessment should not be a box-ticking exercise, so I welcome the minister’s comment on that today. The assessments must be real and meaningful.

The committee agreed that, for islanders to have confidence in the island impact assessments, they must have a mechanism by which they can appeal against or object to assessments. Although the Government acknowledged our recommendation, I note that it is at this stage unprepared to include an appeal mechanism in the bill.

On retrospective island impact assessments, the committee recognised that it is unrealistic to assess all current legislation. However, we believe that retrospective action is appropriate if it can be demonstrated that specific legislation has had a negative impact on the islands. We note that the Scottish Government is in agreement and we welcome that. We also note that the Government does not believe that it is necessary to seek views on that issue specifically as part of its consultation on the guidance for legislation or policy that could be problematic for islands. The committee will have to consider that issue further at stage 2.

I turn now to marine licensing powers. The committee acknowledged that local authorities support the principle of greater marine licensing powers, and we look forward to seeing further details on that from the Scottish Government. The committee also recognised that the interaction between marine licensing powers in the bill and in existing legislation caused confusion for some stakeholders. Although the committee felt that a provision for marine licensing powers should be included in the bill, we are concerned about how it will work in practice. The addition of an extra layer of bureaucracy might overcomplicate the marine licensing scheme and there could be duplication. We call on the Government to provide further details on the relationship and interaction between the Islands (Scotland) Bill and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.

On constituency boundaries, the committee and everyone to whom we spoke welcomed the fact that the Scottish Government included in the bill a provision that will protect the Western Isles as a Scottish Parliament constituency. The committee also welcomes that the Scottish Government will act on the suggestion of the Boundary Commission for Scotland to provide greater flexibility to better balance council wards that consist of inhabited islands, so we look forward to seeing the Government’s amendment on that at stage 2.

Our report raises many issues, and the committee looks forward to seeing positive action on all our recommendations. The committee recommends that Parliament, subject to the points that we raise in our report, agree to the general principles of the bill.

14:54  

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I am pleased to open for the Conservative group. I thank my fellow Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee members, the clerks and especially all the people who gave evidence, for getting the bill to this stage.

It must be remembered that the bill has its origins in the our islands, our future initiative, which was a piece of work that was started in 2013 by the councils of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to look at constitutional reform to give the islands more autonomy and more powers over the sea bed and renewable resources.

The bill is an enabling bill that provides for future action by the Scottish Government. It is therefore important to manage the expectations of islanders who might expect more immediate and tangible outcomes.

The Conservatives support the bill. An extensive consultation process has got the bill to this point. As the convener said, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee held videoconferences with Arran community representatives, the University of the Highlands and Islands and Heriot-Watt University. We also visited the island of Mull, the Western Isles and Orkney to speak to island councils and islanders themselves. It was fantastic to get a feeling for the enthusiasm and expectation that island folk have for the bill. It was also a personal pleasure for me to see close up some beautiful parts of Scotland and the strength of the sense of community that they possess.

There are 93 inhabited islands in Scotland, with a population of just over 103,000, which is 2 per cent of the population. Only five of those islands are connected to mainland Scotland by a bridge or causeway, so they are dependent on ferries or planes to reach the mainland. It is clear that the constituents of those islands face considerable obstacles to accessing higher education and, in some cases, even secondary education. Access to healthcare and hospitals can be difficult and people who require long-term and on-going care often have to be away from their families for long periods. On some islands, there are no care homes for the elderly, which creates severe problems for families.

Access to such facilities is taken for granted on the mainland, so it is clear that if the bill is to mean anything it must start to redress some of those missing services, provide real assurance to islanders and improve outcomes for them.

We believe that the bill needs to include one or two high-level objectives to give it greater purpose and focus. We want to avoid confusion over what the bill is in place to achieve, so its purpose should be included and outlined from the beginning.

The bill will be judged on the practical difference that it makes on the ground for islanders. Targets and indicators will enable the public to see the progress at every review. I therefore welcome the Government’s response in accepting that those should be included in the bill.

The committee recommends that the six island authorities be made statutory consultees during the national islands plan’s development. The Government does not want to include a prescriptive list in the bill—I understand that—but the island authorities must be consulted. The national islands plan should be an overarching and strategic framework in which each individual island community can take full advantage of the opportunities that the bill offers.

I welcome the bill and its concept of the islands impact assessment, which mandates the Government and its agencies to take into account the impacts that any new services or policies would have on the islands and to address them appropriately. The term “island proofing”, which has been used interchangeably with “island impact assessment”, is one that the Government needs to use with caution. The enthusiasm that has been shown by the islanders during consultations must not turn to disappointment—expectations need to be managed. The use of the term “island proofing” provides much greater expectation than “island impact assessment” does, which might raise expectations that cannot be delivered.

It is quite clear that retrospective island impact assessments would be unrealistic, but I agree that there should be an opportunity for any current legislation that severely impacts on island communities to be retrospectively reviewed. Although that would lead to more questions for the Government, it would help to strengthen what the bill sets out to do.

There was a lot of support from the local authorities for increased powers for marine licensing, which would potentially be a big boost for coastal communities. However, there was some confusion regarding marine licensing, which needs to be reviewed by the minister. For instance, the applications to vary work licences that were granted under Zetland legislation would be exempt if they were made after the area had been designated. There is also confusion around the responsibilities and boundaries in relation to the 12 nautical miles limit. In some cases, islands would share some of that area, so that needs to be clarified.

The last and biggest concern that I want to raise is finance—or, in the case of the bill, the lack of it. The costs that are outlined in the financial memorandum are related only to delivery of the duties in the bill. There is no budget to implement new services on the islands or to implement the national islands plan, and there is no budget to mitigate anything that an island impact assessment indicates requires improvement.

John Mason

Does Peter Chapman accept that although some things would cost money, Orkney Islands Council told the committee that if it was given more powers, it could use the existing money to produce a better result?

Peter Chapman

I accept that, but I reiterate that there is a need for extra funds to address the many issues that we know exist.

If the bill is to improve island life, it must contain a budget to add new services, new facilities and new opportunities. There are expectations for significant improvement in those areas, but with no budget those expectations cannot be met.

It is clear that the bill needs further work and that we can expect changes and improvements at stage 2. I look forward to seeing the implementation of those changes and improvements, because we all want the bill to be a success for the people of the islands.

15:01  

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Labour supports the principles and the spirit of the Islands (Scotland) Bill. Our islands make an enormous contribution to Scotland’s cultural and economic wellbeing, but as the our islands, our future campaign made clear, there is a real need to better support and empower our islands. It is to the credit of those who established that campaign that Parliament is debating the bill. I hope that the campaign has fired the first shots in efforts to address the decade of centralisation of power in Scotland. This is an opportunity to empower our island communities and put local experiences and expertise at the heart of decision making.

It would, nevertheless, be fair to say that the islands bill is more evolution than revolution. I suspect that, even if it is amended, it will not be as ambitious as the island communities that it seeks to deliver for. Managing expectations will be challenging. The bill’s important but modest provisions, although welcome, will not give our islands the power to fully transform their communities, as they clearly want to. Amendments can be made to strengthen the bill, though, and I look forward to working with parties across the chamber as the bill makes it way through the parliamentary process.

For example, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee rightly argues for the bill to be amended to include a purpose section that sets out clear, overarching objectives. Of course, such a section should not be overly prescriptive or limiting, and I acknowledge the minister’s concern that it must have a clear legal purpose. However, an explicit indication of the bill’s aspirations and how it will help to deliver equity and sustainability for our islands would help to ensure that the reality of the bill better matches its ambition so that provisions such as the proposed national islands plan do not fall short in practice.

Paving the way for the development of a national islands plan is a key element of the bill, as is outlined in part 2. That plan must set out not only a clear direction but practical measures to be delivered, and local communities and stakeholders must be at the heart of the plan’s development. I am pleased that the Government has agreed to the call from the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee to make local authorities statutory consultees in the development of the plan and guidance. A one-size-fits-all approach would not work for such a plan, which must be about enabling local communities. As the Federation of Small Businesses argued in its evidence to the committee, we need local solutions to meet local needs and aspirations.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

Colin Smyth is talking about how we can empower local communities and decentralise decision making. Which section of the bill does that? I see very little in the bill, other than the creation of marine licensing powers, that will give statutory powers to local communities.

Colin Smyth

That is really a question for the minister. I am certainly not going to defend the scope of the bill, because I think that it does not go as far as it could to empower local communities. The call to make local authority-level island plans a statutory requirement would help in that regard, and I welcome the Government’s decision to seek the views of local authorities on that matter.

It is important that the bill acknowledges the differences between the islands that it covers and that the unique needs of each island and island grouping are fully recognised.

As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I am pleased that the committee will undertake regular scrutiny of the national plan and its annual reports. In particular, I welcome the commitment in the committee’s report to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to present their views.

Likewise, I welcome the Government’s indication that the plan will include clear outcomes, targets and measurable indicators by which to assess performance. Giving Parliament a chance to monitor and scrutinise the plan’s impact is vital, so I echo the committee’s call for the bill to include a set time limit for the submission of the plan’s annual report.

Part 3 of the bill covers duties in relation to island communities, including the introduction of island communities impact assessments. The Government’s guidance on that process will be key to ensuring that the assessments function as they should. I am glad that a commitment has been made to lodge an amendment that would make the affected local authorities statutory consultees in the development of the guidance. In order for the impact assessments to be reliable, they must also have a strong evidence base, and the Government has made a welcome commitment to review the data that are available on island communities as part of the implementation of the bill and to address any gaps that arise. Such data will provide a crucial foundation for accurate and dependable assessments.

I am, nevertheless, disappointed that, in its response to the committee, the Government failed to take on board the committee’s recommendation that it introduce an appeal or objection mechanism for impact assessments. I appreciate that there are concerns about the bureaucracy that that might entail, but it would provide accountability and ensure that islanders had confidence in the process. There is a balance to be struck, but I do not believe that it is an unreasonable ask.

There is also a need to be cautious about the language that is used—a point that the committee stressed and that several members have raised in the debate. The phrases “island proofed” and “impact assessed” appear to have become interchangeable, but it is clear that they have different meanings. Impact assessing something does not immediately guarantee that action will be taken to resolve any issues that the assessment raises, and there is a danger that describing the process as “island proofing” may raise expectations beyond what the bill will deliver. As Liam McArthur said, there is a case to be made for retrospective impact assessments of carefully selected acts.

Part 4 of the bill includes the protection of the Scottish Parliament’s Western Isles constituency boundary to deliver parity with Orkney and Shetland, which is welcome, as is the provision of flexibility for the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to recommend smaller wards where that will lead to island communities being better represented.

The need for such provisions highlights the wholly inadequate rules that are currently in legislation—and that are, on occasion, simply made up by the Boundary Commission for Scotland and the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland—when it comes to recognising local ties, particularly in rural areas. The requirement for the commissions to have regard to local ties is often meaningless, as arguments about parity completely outweigh arguments about the bonds of local communities. The wider issue of the need to address the complete carve-up of communities by the boundary commissions might be a debate for another day, but it is certainly one that we should have.

My colleagues will talk about other aspects of the bill, such as the inclusion of uninhabited islands. The last area that I will highlight is the proposal, in part 5, to establish new marine licensing powers. That is welcome, but it must be developed and implemented carefully and in line with the existing legislation. There remains a need for clarity on how exactly the powers would operate.

Labour welcomes the general principles of the bill, but work remains to be done. Not only will there be a need to amend the provisions in the bill; as it stands, the bill fails to explicitly reference natural heritage. Scotland’s natural heritage is of huge cultural, environmental and economic value, particularly on our islands. That should be reflected in the bill with a clear commitment to safeguarding natural heritage on our islands.

We also need to address local authorities’ understandable concerns about the financial burdens associated with the bill. With council budgets already stretched beyond breaking point, the Scottish Government must ensure that the implementation of the bill does not put our island authorities at a financial disadvantage.

The REC Committee highlighted that

“many of the issues which affect islands can also impact on remote and rural mainland areas.”

Although I appreciate that this is beyond the scope of the bill, there is an opportunity to reflect on the approach that is being taken and ensure that, in the future, we better support and seek to empower all our rural and remote communities.

15:08  

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Since long before the launch of the our islands, our future campaign, island communities have demonstrated time and again that they are more than capable of setting their own agenda for development, and they are presenting their own ideas about how to deliver the best possible future for their own islands.

In my constituency of Cunninghame North, in the communities of Arran, Cumbrae and Holy Isle, I witness at first hand how passionate islanders are about protecting and promoting their islands. With everything from ferry committees to economic groups, from coastal protection task forces to community councils and from elderly forums to rescue teams, island communities are independent, resilient and, in many ways, self-sufficient. I believe that the bill not only will help to mitigate some of the challenges that island communities face but will empower them to make the most of their natural, economic and cultural resources.

Some of the challenges that are thrown up by island living are highly visible, and those of us who live in rural areas can relate to them. Transport, physical remoteness and infrastructure can all be significantly different from mainland services. However, more hidden challenges, including population decline and the lack of high-quality digital connectivity, can make modern life more difficult.

Of the 192 responses to the consultation that was published in 2016, over 85 per cent supported the Scottish Government’s aim of introducing a national islands plan. Respondents appreciated that such a plan, which is to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the date on which the act comes into force, will tackle pressing issues, maintaining focus instead of offering quick fixes and addressing need as it changes and develops with time.

The islands plan will also increase accountability. By identifying objectives, setting measures and defining responsibilities, we can ensure that the bill delivers the real and lasting change that our island communities are calling for. Some respondents called for tighter definitions and better mechanisms for reporting and review, and I believe that those points should be considered as the bill progresses.

A phrase that we will hear increasingly often throughout the bill process—we have already heard it on a number of occasions today—is “island proofing”, which is the duty that is to be placed on ministers and public bodies to consider the unique nature of life on our islands in exercising their functions. That will bring awareness of our islands to the forefront of political decision making and ensure that proper assessment of any new or revised policy, strategy or service is carried out when it is likely to impact directly or indirectly on Scotland’s inhabited islands.

That proposal was supported by 91 per cent of consultation respondents, who appreciated the need for a tailored approach to legislation instead of our islands being shoehorned into one-size-fits-all policies, because all our islands are different. The Clyde islands are hugely different in size, population, governmental structure and character from the three island authority areas, and the Inner Hebrides and their communities also want the bill to work for them.

From working alongside my islands constituents, I know how proud they are of the coastal beauty and marine life that make their landscape unique. Islanders already take pride in the south Arran marine protected area and Lamlash bay’s no-take zone. I am confident that they will welcome the opportunity to have more control over the development of the seas around their islands via the implementation of a marine licensing scheme.

The adoption of a holistic approach to the process of marine planning has been commended by the Law Society of Scotland. It is vital that any new licensing regime fits into the national framework that has been in place since 2010. The 2010 act created a more open and transparent licensing process, and changes resulting from the bill should help, not hinder, this coherent approach to managing Scottish waters. Private businesses form an important part of island life, and the national islands plan should bolster support for sustainable island businesses.

The Federation of Small Businesses reported that 86 per cent of business owners on Arran and Cumbrae felt that their island is a good place to do business. However, 28 per cent of respondents admitted that they had considered relocating to the mainland.

Creating a positive business environment on our islands requires a multifaceted approach, with issues of transport and digital connectivity being of particular importance. Of course, the Scottish National Party Government is investing £600 million to reach 100 per cent of homes and businesses with superfast broadband by 2021. Were it not for Scottish Government investment to date, only 65 per cent of premises in North Ayrshire would be connected to fibre broadband. I am pleased that 94 per cent of North Ayrshire residents now have access to superfast broadband, and, with a new fibre cabinet currently being installed in Kildonan, even more Arran residents will achieve superfast speeds in 2018, with 100 per cent of even the most remote island residents across Scotland having access by 2021.

In addition to the connection of homes and businesses, more must be done to attract young, skilled workers to our islands to guarantee their future and to ensure that they are dynamic and attractive places in which to live and work. The challenge of Scotland’s ageing population is felt even more acutely on our islands, and the national islands plan must address that.

The Scottish Government has already been working for our islands. In my constituency, there have been a number of tremendous improvements in the past decade. There have been housing developments at Benlista on Arran and Saint Beya in Cumbrae, and we have seen road equivalent tariffs introduced for ferries, which has more than halved the cost of cars going to Arran. In addition, £61.1 million has been invested in two new ferries for Arran, £12 million has been invested in a ferry for Cumbrae and there is a new £31 million harbour at Brodick. Over the next year or so, a new harbour will also be built at Ardrossan, and there has been a £5 million development of Largs pier, which serves Cumbrae. Furthermore, when the university marine biological station in Cumbrae was threatened with closure, which would have meant the loss of 28 jobs, the Scottish Government stepped in to help to save it.

The islands bill should not be seen in isolation but rather as part of the larger framework of legislative and policy activity that is under way to protect our island communities. Work relating to the Crown Estate and the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 is helping us to make significant strides towards returning more responsibility to island communities. This historic bill demonstrates just how much our islands mean to the fabric of Scottish culture and society. It is a bold step forward in meeting the unique needs of Scotland’s islands now and for years to come.

15:14  

John Scott (Ayr) (Con)

I am delighted to speak in the stage 1 debate on the Islands (Scotland) Bill, which will see real devolution to island communities at a time when we increasingly see greater centralisation to the central belt.

Although I am not an islands MSP, I admire and acknowledge the strength and tenacity of island communities. The difficulties and challenges that arise due to weather and inaccessibility require the residents of all islands to be resilient and determined to make things work. Naturally, we all want to see more power in the hands of our islands, and they are eager for positive change so that they can set the agenda to better themselves and their communities.

Back in 2014, when the our islands, our future vision was set out, we saw the islands grasp the bull by the horns and put themselves out there with a plan that, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, would see more powers devolved to the islands. The Scottish Government brought the bill to Parliament, but the island communities must be commended for their initiative to get the ball rolling—we must not forget that.

However, we must also not forget that the people who live in remote and rural mainland communities may be slightly worried about the bill. Many communities in those areas can be several hours from the nearest large town. That was highlighted in the stage 1 committee report and, rightly, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s willingness to reflect on whether a similar approach to island proofing may be considered for remote rural areas. Places such as Ardnamurchan and the Mull of Kintyre are classic examples of peninsular mainland areas that are far from larger towns and, therefore, lack choice of public services and amenities.

The Mull of Kintyre, for example, is 37 miles from my constituency of Ayr as the crow flies, but the drive in a car would take nearly six hours through Glasgow traffic to reach Campbeltown. Those peninsular areas, while they are connected to the mainland, often face accessibility issues when a vital transport link is obstructed; to reach the Mull of Kintyre if the pass at Rest and Be Thankful is blocked requires a lengthy detour via Dalmally and Crianlarich. As we know, time is money, and that remoteness can have a significant knock-on effect on small businesses and delivery times. In short, that produces the same effect as if a ferry to an island were delayed. We do not want to see the elevation of islands in status at the expense of those remote rural areas and we welcome the acknowledgement of that point in the stage 1 report.

On the issue of constituency boundaries, I welcome the intention that the Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency will be given the same protection as the Orkney and Shetland constituencies. It is important that the Outer Hebrides archipelago is recognised as a separate entity and community of interest. In the future, having those boundaries protected for geographical, historical and practical reasons will mean that the constituents who send their MSP to this place can be sure that they are fully accountable to their islands, and not to a part of the mainland as well.

John Mason

On John Scott’s point about rural Scotland, does he agree that we may need to review the three constituencies that cover the whole west coast of Scotland’s mainland?

John Scott

I can only imagine that that would flow from what I have just said; self-evidently there would be a need to do that.

I turn to the national islands plan, about which some Conservative colleagues have voiced their concerns. I stress that it is imperative that, with a national islands plan, we will see proper action and progress, not merely warm words and weak promises. I am glad that the committee recognised that and that it has called for clarity. We must ensure that there are achievable targets and objectives in order that the islands will experience the positive change that they seek, and that those are fully funded by the Government.

As the committee noted, it is important that local knowledge is harnessed and that there are local decision-making structures in place. I am therefore pleased that the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should amend the bill to make the creation of local authority-level island plans a statutory requirement. From speaking to my Conservative colleagues, I know that there has been a real sense of enthusiasm and passion from the islands to make a success of this, and we must not let them down.

Turning to definitions, I reiterate the Law Society of Scotland’s point that further consideration needs to be given to ensuring that the bill provides the clarity and certainty required to ensure that the legislation can be properly implemented. The committee and stakeholders have acknowledged that definitions need to be properly defined, particularly of the terms “island” and “island community”.

We want the enthusiasm for positive change in the island communities to translate into actions by the Scottish Government. For too long, the agenda of the devolved Scottish Government has been one of centralisation, and it still is. Finally, however, we have a bill that goes some way—in part—towards devolving power from Edinburgh into the hands of those who make the best decisions for the islands: the islanders themselves.

My Conservative colleagues and I will support the bill at stage 1 but will seek to amend it at stage 2 to ensure that it is robust and effective.

15:20  

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

As deputy convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I thank everyone who gave evidence on the bill in person and in writing, all the people whom we visited on the islands, all the councils involved and the people who have taken the time to provide us with briefings for this debate—their input has been extremely valuable. I also thank the committee clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for all their hard work and I thank my fellow committee members for a unanimously agreed stage 1 report. The report is a comprehensive, in-depth piece of work and I do not think that any of our committee imagined, when we started our scrutiny all those months ago, that we would produce a report with nearly 300 points.

The bill came about largely due to the work that was put into the our islands, our future campaign by Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council and Western Isles Council, and the subsequent report “Empowering Scotland’s Island Communities” in 2014. We also now include not just island local authorities but local authorities with islands, namely Highland Council, Argyll and Bute Council and North Ayrshire Council.

When our committee was tasked with bringing forward the stage 1 report on the bill, the obvious place to start was with islanders themselves. Many people were unsure how much scope the bill would have, what its objectives were to be and how that would be turned into something with tangible benefits. We were, and still have to be, very careful to try to manage expectations around what the bill is trying to achieve. The bill focuses on provisions that are designed to protect and strengthen Scotland’s island communities; it aims to meet the unique needs of Scotland’s islands by making sure that impact assessments are carried out on policy and decisions by public bodies to ensure that they do not have a detrimental or negative effect on our island communities; and it puts in place a provision for the development of an islands plan. We expect that to set out both a clear strategic approach and the practical approaches to delivery. We want to be assured that the priority areas featured in the plan will reflect the actual priorities of islanders.

We recommended that the consultation on the plan should be undertaken as widely as possible and that the plan should contain a list of who was consulted. There should be a method that allows a body or group that was not consulted, but feels that it should have been, to address any concerns to the Scottish Government. We would like to see young people being a focus of the plan in order to try to keep them on the islands and we want islanders to have the opportunity to present their views in the Parliament on the annual reports and the five-year refresh of the plan.

This is an islands bill, but many of the issues that arose as challenges on the islands can also be applied to remote and rural communities. As the representative of a large rural constituency, it is only right that I address those. When Highland Council’s director of development and infrastructure, Stuart Black, gave evidence to the committee, he told us:

“Many communities, particularly remote and rural ones, are facing challenges that cannot necessarily be addressed through a piece of legislation. However, if the spirit of the bill involves examining remote areas and considering that they need additional protection, that is positive for the wider Highland area.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 20 September 2017; c 25.]

When the Minister for Transport and the Islands, Humza Yousaf, gave evidence to the committee, I asked him about remote and rural communities, and he replied:

“Rural communities should consider island proofing as a great opportunity. If the Islands (Scotland) Bill is passed ... and island proofing is successful in its implementation ... there is no reason why the Government should not look at that success and consider whether we want to explore that approach for rural Scotland as well.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 8 November 2017; c 7.]

However, our islands face different challenges. We have never disputed that, and hearing islanders’ testimony at first hand has made us acutely aware that the bill is necessary. Being completely surrounded by water is one of those challenges, although the submission from the Law Society of Scotland threw up some questions about the definitions and it asked that we look at them in closer detail. In the light of that, we called on the Scottish Government to look at the terms “island”, “inhabited island” and “island community” as well as “high tide” and “low tide”. That is in relation to pieces of land that may be accessible at low tide by a natural causeway but which are surrounded by water at high tide, and not islands that are accessible by bridges, which are indeed islands, as my colleague Kate Forbes will attest to.

RSPB Scotland supported our call for the cultural, environmental and economic significance of uninhabited islands to be recognised, and it asked us to go further and include them specifically in the bill. We have sought reassurance that they will be included in the national islands plan, but I am interested in hearing the minister’s response to the idea that they should be included in the bill.

As a member of another committee in Parliament, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I am pleased to say that we included in our report recommendations on both equalities and human rights. We fully expect them to be considered as part of the implementation of the bill, and we have asked the Scottish Government whether the Scottish Human Rights Commission was considered as a consultee for the national islands plan.

There is much more in the report than I can cover today, and I urge everyone with an interest to read it. I once again thank everyone who contributed to it. One of the most important things that we heard was that islands are not looking for special treatment but are merely seeking equity. They are looking for the decisions that are made by public bodies not to disadvantage them, and a lot of islanders stressed to us their hope that the bill will also have knock-on effects for the mainland. As you can imagine, Presiding Officer, I hope that it will do so as well. I commend the report to the Parliament.

15:26  

David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

This is an important and historic debate for the islands and, indeed, all of Scotland. As a Highlands and Islands regional member, I am delighted to contribute. I put on the record my recognition of the work of Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council and Western Isles Council. Their first-class policy analysis and campaigning work on the issue was rightly recognised with a national joint campaign award. In addition, the minister has been a doughty and persistent campaigner for an islands bill—I hope that that praise from me does not ruin his political career.

Why a bill just for the islands? Surely mainland rural areas have the same problems. What about deprivation, unemployment and poverty in our inner cities? Well, of course, this is a not a zero-sum game. As iconic Secretary of State for Scotland Willie Ross said in the second reading of the Highland Development (Scotland) Bill,

“It has never been more important than today that all the country’s resources should be fully exploited, and the Highlands”

and Islands

“have much to contribute. This is not a case of giving to the Highlands”

and Islands.

“This is a case of giving the”

islands and the

“Highlands a chance to play their full part in the future of Britain.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 March 1965; Vol 708, c 1086.]

Of course, much has changed in our island communities since Willie Ross’s stirring speech echoed across Westminster—the discovery of oil and gas; the development of the University of the Highlands and Islands, with five of its 13 academic partners being wholly based on the islands; the common agricultural policy; the minimum wage; the air discount scheme; the introduction of route development funding; the road equivalent tariff; the rural fuel rebate; and European structural and investment funds. However, whether the policy in question originated in Brussels, London or Edinburgh, the end result was a win-win for island communities. To echo the EU’s global Europe 2050 vision, policies should not be “territorially blind”.

However, some things have not changed. At a conference that was organised by Shetland Islands Council and the Committee of the Regions, the 2011 Euroislands study, which analysed island communities across the EU, was debated and discussed. The common characteristics are that islands have below-average connectivity, their gross domestic product is below the European average, economic convergence is slower, numbers of job and career opportunities are low and services are of variable quality and high cost.

As a counterweight, the 2012 Geospec survey concluded that islands have close-knit communities, high-value natural capital and the potential for renewable energy. Perhaps the minister will share my view that the UK should have joined the other 14 EU countries in the clean energy for EU islands initiative, which was signed in Malta in 2017. However, the survey also said that islands experienced higher vulnerability to climate change through heightening sea levels and an increased likelihood of storms.

I believe that the time is right for a new islands act that builds on the best practice from Scotland, as exemplified by the our islands, our future campaign, which has been mentioned often today and which looks to Europe and beyond.

Perhaps the best exemplar that I can find for future legislation—and the minister is aware of this—is the Japanese Remote Islands Development Act of 1953, with which all members will be intimately familiar. It was one of the first pieces of legislation in the world to recognise the distinct nature of island communities. As a result of that act, the Japanese island of Okinawa, which has close ties with the UHI, became a prefecture, which is the first level of jurisdiction and administrative division in Japan. Perhaps, in winding up, the minister could comment further on best practice. I hope that he has swotted up on the 1953 act since I last warned him about it. In addition, I ask the minister to say whether he supports the plea to have a single public service authority in the islands, which would combine health, local authority and elements of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Nearer to home, it is worth stressing that there is nothing new in the argument for strengthening our island communities. The Montgomery committee, which reported in April 1984, recommended consolidating, developing and extending the powers of island councils. One of the key elements of the Treaty on European Union was the principle of subsidiarity—that is, taking decisions in a localised, decentralised way. The EU has always had strong and consistent policies to give special attention to the specific characteristics of territories with serious and permanent handicaps, including islands. Those handicaps are well known to islanders: limited and costly modes of transport, restricted and declining economic activities, the fragility of markets and the loss of young people.

So what would an islands bill look like? As we have said, the template is the our islands, our future campaign. However, new powers need new financial muscle. Real devolution means resource-based control: transferring control of the sea bed from the Crown Estate to island authorities and onwards to the community land and harbour trusts. New powers need strategic decision making in the planning, designing and commissioning of mainland-to-island ferry services, and the recognition of island status in the Scottish constitutional set-up.

As well as gaining new powers, we must keep what works well. As the old cliché says, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? That is why many of my colleagues across the chamber are so keen to see HIE’s headquarters remain in the Highlands and Islands, with a single HIE board and chief executive, and continued decentralisation of staff in our island authorities. The bigger picture is that we need active Scottish Government and Westminster Government commitment to the relocation of public sector jobs to island communities—for example, CalMac jobs to the Western Isles, Marine Scotland jobs to Shetland and the Crown Estate’s headquarters to Orkney, as a starter for 10. It is clear that there is support for the principle of island proofing to fight isolation, remoteness and peripherality.

I will finish my speech as I started it, by quoting Willie Ross in the 1965 debate about the Highlands and Islands. He said:

“No part of Scotland has been given a shabbier deal by history from the ’45 onwards. Too often there has been only one way out of troubles for the person born in the Highlands and islands—emigration.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 March 1965; Vol 708, c 1095.]

Those who are entrusted with carrying out the duties in the new Islands (Scotland) Bill might find themselves involved in a date with history and being part of the history of Scotland. In the words of Sir Walter Scott, all that we need is

“The will to do, the soul to dare.”

15:33  

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I, too, would like to thank the various participants who have contributed to the debate and to the briefings, and also our staff. I am very grateful to my colleague David Stewart. Life is an education, and I did not think that I would ever be making a note of the Japanese Remote Islands Development Act of 1953, which will be my bedtime reading tonight.

A lot of reference has been made to the our islands, our future campaign, which is entirely what politics should be about—local communities coming together with shared interests and people working to shape policies. All the individuals, serving and past, who were involved in the campaign are to be commended. That ties in with paragraph 4 of the Government’s policy memorandum, which says:

“Some of the most resilient and supportive communities in Scotland are within the islands.”

Many of us knew that already, but if we had been in any doubt, it would have become apparent during many of our visits out. The policy memorandum goes on to say:

“However, island communities face challenges around geographic remoteness, declining populations, transport and digital connections, and other issues.”

It is fair to say that some of those are not unique to islands. Contributors have spoken about the challenges in remote areas in Highland and also in Argyll and Bute, and reference has been made to the other local authority that has island responsibility, which is North Ayrshire Council.

Very welcome steps have been taken such as the introduction of RET, and I was delighted to be part of the resolution of the internal ferries funding issue for the northern isles, which the Parliament was in agreement over and which has been a very positive development for the islands.

As the minister is aware, expectations have been raised by the bill. Indeed, others have referred to the expectations with regard to remote communities; in that respect, I would point out Knoydart and Scoraig in my part of the world which, although part of the mainland, are accessible only by ferry.

The policy memorandum goes on to talk about the issues that were consulted on, the first of which is island proofing. My word, but we had a lot of discussion about what that meant and the expectations that it raised. There is an opportunity for some retrospection. I do not think that that should mean revisiting everything, but if an arrangement or system is not working—for instance, my colleague Liam McArthur mentioned fuel poverty—it should be revisited, and part of that work should include island proofing. We should never say never.

As for the bill’s implications for the Parliament and local government, we have to be alert to unintended consequences. There was a lot of discussion about the implications for ward size, membership and make-up, with a particular issue with wards that straddle island and mainland communities.

As ever, nothing is straightforward. I believe that my colleague Peter Chapman talked about care homes; I absolutely think that there are opportunities in that respect, but they have to be realistic. Not every island will have its own secondary school or hospital, but if we had more of the collaborative working that was commended by the Christie commission—which we all talk about and on which we still have a long way to go—some of these things could be delivered. Indeed, I think that David Stewart asked the minister for his position on a single purpose authority.

Of course, such things have to be viable. With hospitals, for example, that might be about being able to recruit and retain staff and having the necessary flow of business to ensure people’s continuing professional development. However, there are also opportunities. In gathering evidence for our report on the bill, the committee looked at the use of information technology, which is very much the norm in many parts of the Highlands and Islands and is to be commended. After all, we have to grow our population, and not just in the islands; Community Land Scotland talked about repopulating areas that had been cleared. I absolutely agree. The glens used to be full of people, and I would like to see them full of people again.

With regard to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill, it says under the heading “Local empowerment and devolution of powers”:

“The Committee supports the empowerment of island communities and the devolution of appropriate powers by the Scottish Government.”

I would hope that that would be the position, without reservation, of everyone in the chamber, because that is what the very issue is. That said, there is still a debate to be had about the areas that should be covered and the implications of some of the legislation. As for the national islands plan, there is also an issue about the expectations that are being raised, and I am pleased that the local authorities will have an on-going involvement in that.

People on the islands have always been creative, but they should not have to keep finding ways of offsetting some of the implications of decisions that are taken here or elsewhere. The issue of assessment has been mentioned, but we need evidence for that, and many of the flawed decisions that have been made at UK, Scottish and, indeed, local authority levels have come about as a result of inadequate assessment of the implications.

In the very short time that I have left, I will mention something that would be very helpful to not only island communities but rural communities and, indeed, the whole place: a resolution of the procurement issue. When we visited the islands, we heard about the challenges of bidding for contracts; people find that contracts get awarded to one of the very large national organisations and are then subsequently subcontracted to local communities, obviously with a sum of money removed. We need to get procurement right.

Overall, there are lots of positives, but there is more work to be done.

15:39  

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I am delighted to speak on the bill. I am not sure whether we are meant to enjoy our work in Parliament, especially when that involves working on a bill, but I have to say that I have not enjoyed working on any legislation as much as I have enjoyed working on this bill. Scotland’s islands are fantastic, and not only for their inhabitants; I believe that they are a central part of the culture and heritage of us all.

As members have heard, the committee had a formal meeting in Orkney and a full visit to Mull. Some of us went to Harris and Lewis and, along the way, I also managed to get to Skye and Ulva, so I am particularly delighted that the latter is now moving towards a community buyout.

The reality is that there was a huge amount of agreement on the committee and, I think, among the islanders and their representatives whom we met that we want to make things better for islands and their communities and that we want this Parliament and other organisations to have them more at the front of our minds rather than at the back. Therefore, we probably all agree on some 90 per cent of the bill. Inevitably, however, today we must focus on the 10 per cent about which we have questions or reservations.

The first issue is the question of a purpose clause for the bill. I think that there is an argument for all, or most, bills having a purpose clause. The act that re-established the Scottish Parliament stated:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament.”

Donald Dewar liked that, and I like that. I wonder whether it should be more of the norm in our legislation that we put more emphasis on the principles behind an act and move away from a very legalistic approach where the focus is on the individual words, which brings with it the danger that we and the courts might sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture.

I accept that there are challenges to including a purpose clause and I have read the Government’s comments on that. For example, we would have to decide what the wording should be. However, something along the lines of “Our intention is that Scotland should have thriving islands” would be the kind of thing that I would like.

The second issue concerns the phrases “island proofing” and “island impact assessment”. In some of our meetings, those phrases were used interchangeably, as has been mentioned already this afternoon. We spent a bit of time in the committee discussing those two terms, whether they meant the same thing and what message they sent out. To me, “island proofing” suggests an idea such as waterproofing, whereby someone is just as dry standing out in the rain as they would be indoors because of the waterproof clothing that they are wearing. However, that cannot be what is meant. Living on an island has many benefits as well as many challenges. It can never be the same as living in a city or even in a remote mainland area.

The third issue—remaining on the issue of island impact assessments—concerns the decision not to fully mitigate differences. I think that it is important to clarify that. We discussed many scenarios around island impact assessments and what would happen when they were carried out. Clearly, what will not happen in every case is that the same services that are available on the mainland will be available on every island—John Finnie just made that point. One example was whether a care home on Mull could be justified. We asked whether, if the difference is not to be fully mitigated—for example, if there is a decision not to provide the care home on Mull—a cost benefit analysis and/or an explanation should be given. I am glad that the Government agrees with us on that point.

The fourth issue concerns uninhabited islands. The focus of the bill is on island communities, and rightly so. However, we have islands that used to be inhabited and are now uninhabited, the most dramatic example of which is St Kilda. The RSPB has argued that such islands are important in relation to wildlife. However, to me, St Kilda is much more than a place for birds to feed and nest. I always wanted to visit the island after reading its story and finding out about the struggles that people had before the evacuation in 1930. It is part of our heritage and our story as a nation. Visiting it was one of the most special experiences of my life. While I note the Government response that inhabited islands will be covered in the plan, I confess to being a little bit disappointed, because I think that uninhabited islands deserve a mention in the bill.

Gail Ross

Does John Mason agree that there are also islands that are inhabited at some times of the year and not others?

John Mason

That is a valid point, and I absolutely agree.

The fifth issue concerns the definition of an island. Having made some comments on this issue in the committee, I think that I need to make some comments about it this afternoon—I can see Kate Forbes looking at me sharply.

As members will have seen, we heard the argument that remote parts of the mainland such as Ardnamurchan and Cape Wrath have similar challenges to islands. However, on Mull, we were reminded that, if someone is seriously ill at night, the only option is a lifeboat or a helicopter. In that respect, islands are different. On Skye or in Ardnamurchan, it is at least possible to drive or get an ambulance, albeit the distances and travel times are very great.

I agree with the definition in Hamish Haswell-Smith’s excellent book on all Scottish islands, which says that an island must be

“entirely surrounded by seawater”

at lowest tide and have

“no permanent means of dry access”.

I accept that that is just one definition and that the definition in the bill is different and wider. I am sure that the Government will be glad to hear that I do not intend to lodge an amendment on that point. However, I agree with the wider argument that very remote parts of the mainland—such as Knoydart, which is on the mainland but must be accessed by ferry—need similar consideration.

I have really enjoyed working on the bill. I have visited 38 Scottish islands—by my definition—and I want to see a bright future for those key parts of our nation’s identity. The bill has room for amendment, but I look forward to it passing stage 1 later tonight.

15:45  

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that we are debating the Islands (Scotland) Bill, which we support. That should come as no surprise, given that we said in our 2016 election manifesto that we would

“Introduce an Islands Act to island-proof all legislation, to give Scottish ministers the right to issue guidance to public authorities as to the way they can vary national services to make them more suitable for islands, subject to local authority consent.”

If the Liberal Democrats had laid an islands bill before Parliament, it would have been a little more robust than the Scottish Government’s bill—although, as I said, we welcome the bill that we are discussing today.

As we have heard, members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee took a great deal of evidence when we examined the bill. It is testament to the constructive approach of all 11 members of the committee that we were able to agree a unanimous report. I hope that the minister takes that on board at stage 2, when he lodges amendments. It is almost always more effective for the minister to lodge amendments, which we can then all support.

As we have already heard, the committee heard from islanders and other stakeholders that they would have liked the bill to identify objectives because that would have given the legislation greater purpose and focus. However, the Government has declined to do that, preferring to address the issue in the national islands plan, which will be published some time after we have finished scrutinising the bill. As MSPs, it is our job to interrogate the bill and we must do so without sight of the Government’s plan. That is not a good start.

One of our main concerns about the bill relates to the issue of island proofing. Our worry is that the Government may be raising expectations among islanders that, for every one of their service changes, the 66 public bodies that are mentioned in the bill will have to adapt their plans to meet the needs of islanders. As we have heard, no extra public money is being made available to islanders as a result of the bill—and we are not requesting that it should be. However, the approach means that all 66 public bodies, which all affect the lives of our islanders, must show how they have taken account of the special circumstances of the islands when they make policy decisions.

When I have discussed the bill with islanders, one of their most important concerns is that the process of island proofing, or of undertaking impact assessments, must not under any circumstance turn into a simple tick-box exercise. That point came across time and again. I foresee that as a major issue that should have been addressed in the bill. We should have a clear process—as the Liberal Democrats outlined in our manifesto—by which those 66 bodies should conduct the impact assessments. We cannot have a board member sitting in an office in the central belt filling in a form to say that he or she has considered the impact of such and such a policy on the islands and is proceeding with it anyway. We need a clear direction from the Government as to exactly how public bodies should approach the impact assessments when island proofing their policies.

In its recommendations, the committee said that the guidance produced by the Scottish Government must require those conducting an impact assessment to make clear the ways in which the views of local people will be incorporated in the decision-making process. That does not necessarily mean that those public bodies must do what local people say, but they must make it clear why they have a particular policy or why they cannot do something. Although in its response to the committee’s report the Scottish Government welcomes that recommendation, it goes on to say that it does not want to be prescriptive—but that is the point. We are missing an opportunity here.

There are other missed opportunities in the bill, one of which is the lack of a section dealing with the retrospective island proofing of legislation. As colleagues have said, we do not necessarily have to throw open the doors to every piece of legislation, but the bill should include a process that allows aspects of previous legislation to be looked at.

Humza Yousaf

I will address that issue in more detail in my closing speech, but does the member have in mind a piece of legislation that he wants us to look at retrospectively, on which we can perhaps engage and have a conversation?

Mike Rumbles

I welcome that very constructive suggestion. My two colleagues Liam McArthur and Tavish Scott certainly have pieces of legislation in mind. We will come to see the minister as a result of that kind invitation.

I know that James Stockan, the leader of Orkney Islands Council, considers that a section on retrospective island proofing, among other things, would make a profound difference to island communities and would enhance this historic piece of legislation. We all want to see the bill transform communities; we do not want to miss this opportunity.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the bill and will support it, but it can be improved and we will aim to do just that—with the minister, we hope—at stages 2 and 3 of the legislative process.

15:51  

Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I own a non-domestic property in the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar area.

I am pleased to contribute to this debate on the Islands (Scotland) Bill, given that I was born and bred on the Isle of Lewis, where my family have farmed more than 400 acres just outside that great metropolis of Stornoway for nearly 100 years and where I have seen at first hand the challenges faced by businesses, especially by my family’s firms, which involved wholesale and retail butchering and livestock auctioneering.

It has always been a challenge to farm in the Outer Hebrides, as farmers are faced with the double whammy of Atlantic gales and transport costs; running successful businesses there is no mean feat. However, over the years, successive Governments have taken welcome measures to make life for island businesses easier—for example, our cattle lorries could travel one way on the ferry free as long as they were empty, which helped to reduce the added financial burden when transporting livestock to and from the island. The same measure applied to any lorries that we had coming over from the mainland with livestock feed or hay and straw.

Those measures were all very welcome, but they were not enough to stop us throwing in the towel in the mid-2000s, when we closed down our auction mart. We did not leave the crofters high and dry—we provided a purpose-built crofters’ co-operative with the land to build a new auction mart, for which they secured HIE funding.

Around the same time, faced with transport costs, supermarket competition in Stornoway and more excessive red tape, the scunnered factor well and truly set in and we closed down our wholesale and retail butchering businesses. Given the reported challenges that Brexit will bring to sheep farming in the Highlands and Islands, the days of the family farms in Stornoway may well be numbered, too.

The Islands (Scotland) Bill is coming along at just the right time and, along with the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, the forthcoming crofting bill that is expected during this session of Parliament, and the Scottish Crown Estate Bill that was introduced a couple of weeks ago, as well as accelerated provision of high-speed broadband, there is hope that decline in the Inner and Outer Hebrides can be reversed.

That said, I agree with Edward Mountain, the convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, that the Islands (Scotland) Bill is not a panacea that will solve all our island challenges. Furthermore, it will not exempt the islands from a lot of the pain that we will all feel post-Brexit.

The committee is correct to state in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government will need to manage the expectations of islanders, who may expect more immediate, tangible outcomes to be delivered from the bill, should it be passed. Therefore, it is vital that the planned island-proofing provision in the bill is not token, and it is doubly important that the Scottish ministers should have the power to issue statutory guidance on island proofing to relevant public bodies. Those bodies would have to adhere to the guidance in the exercise of their functions and duties. As Comhairle nan Eilean Siar has suggested, an appropriate way to proceed would be to entrench the statutory guidance in the process for making decisions, in a similar manner to that used to fulfil the public sector equality duty. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar made the specific suggestion that the duty should apply to all public bodies, unless a particular public body can satisfy the Scottish ministers that the duty is not relevant to its functions.

Island proofing should apply to the development of any policy or law within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and, of course, it should be hoped and expected that the UK Government will adopt similar guidance for the consideration of policies that are reserved to Westminster and the agencies that have a remit in Scotland.

The UK Government’s proposal to ban live animal exports is a current salient example. Such a ban would have a devastating effect on livestock producers in the Western Isles as well as, I am sure, the northern isles. By necessity, livestock that travels from the Outer Hebrides to the mainland can often be on trucks for longer than livestock that crosses the English Channel, because of ferry timings and storm delays. Although that is far from ideal, it is the only way for island producers to get their stock to markets or to send their stock to better pasture for finishing. I was therefore delighted to see the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, Fergus Ewing, take a strong stance on the issue a couple of days ago. He said:

“this is one UK-wide framework the Scottish government will not be participating in.”

That is a prime example of how, without island proofing, the economy of the islands and the livelihoods of crofters and farmers could be severely disadvantaged. I note that the Deputy Presiding Officer, Christine Grahame, is attempting to bring to the chamber a members’ business debate on banning live animal exports. If her motion secures cross-party support, I look forward to that debate taking place. Needless to say, I have not signed the motion.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

I remind Angus MacDonald that I am in the chair, so I am silenced. However, inside I am not silenced.

Angus MacDonald

Okay. That is noted, Presiding Officer.

In written evidence to the committee, Community Land Scotland put forward a pertinent argument, saying that

“a key question to be asked”

when new policy and law is being considered

“would be whether the devolution of more power to the Islands Councils or Councils with islands would be potentially advantageous to the governance and sustainability of those areas.”

There is merit in that argument, and I hope that it will be considered during the development of the national islands plan, which will, I understand, be laid before the Parliament within 12 months of the act coming into force.

There are so many aspects to the bill that it is impossible to cover all of them in the time available, but I hope that I have given a sense of where I come from on it. Suffice it to say that I wish the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee well for stage 2, and I look forward to the bill returning to the chamber for stage 3.

15:57  

Donald Cameron (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this stage 1 debate on the Islands (Scotland) Bill, which marks a significant step towards real island devolution.

One of the great aspects of being a Highlands and Islands MSP is the ability to represent islanders in the Parliament. Having been to Islay and Lewis in the past month—I have another visit to Lewis tomorrow—I am acutely aware of what the bill could do for those communities. I commend the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for its visits across the islands. It has certainly succeeded in getting people talking—at least, the people whom I have met in the past months.

I join others in thanking the island councils and the communities in those islands for all their work in helping to bring the bill to fruition. It was their persistence—principally through the our islands, our future campaign, which other members have mentioned—that drove the Government to deliver on that, and it is because of their efforts that we are having this debate. That is why it is so important that they are still involved in the process as we go forward.

I have argued before in the chamber against the SNP Government’s centralising agenda. It is refreshing to see, for once, the Government looking to devolve power away from the centre and deliver real support for our island communities.

As others have said, it is crucial that we ensure that there is not simply a box-ticking exercise. Many people have used the phrase “tick-box exercise”—in a way, the phrase has been overused—but that says something very important. The legislation must be meaningful. It must strengthen and support those in our most remote areas, and it is important that we lay the groundwork for a national islands plan that can build on the bill and deliver real and tangible change. Mike Rumbles gave the very vivid image of someone in the central belt just filling in a form. We cannot allow that to happen. The legislation must be meaningful.

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee has recommended to the Government that the six local authorities with island interests be made statutory consultees in the development of a national islands plan, and I support that, because it is essential to guarantee that the island communities that inspired the bill and the plan, and which they seek to benefit, are at the centre of the process.

That recommendation recognises another point, which is that, although much of the debate is rightly centred on the three island authorities that have driven the process, we must be aware that they are not the only local authorities in Scotland that have islands in their areas and which face complex needs. In the Highlands and Islands region, which I represent, Argyll and Bute Council has some 23 inhabited islands in its area, which is more than any other local authority in Scotland, and the Highland Council area includes 15 inhabited islands, according to the most recent census. In addition, as John Finnie mentioned, there are many mainland areas that are in some ways like islands—they might have peninsulas or be very far away from other parts of the country—and I am glad that the committee covered them in its final recommendation.

Although all the councils with islands are administered from the mainland, with the bulk of their populations being in mainland settlements, we must not forget that they face issues that are very similar to those that are faced by the three island authorities. Council colleagues across the political spectrum who represent island communities regularly tell me that they often struggle to implement many of the changes that are directed by Government and, in common with the three island authorities, they find it difficult to do things such as fund care for the elderly, meet the additional support needs of the most vulnerable people, and assist children as they transition from primary to secondary education.

It is also important to note the diversity of the councils that cover large urban populations and remote island communities. The island-proofing process must be able to fit the unique complexities of all the authorities with islands because, as the report states,

“the success of the Bill will be determined by the practical difference that it makes to individual communities.”

That is the central point. That is how the bill will be judged. The islanders I know are independent minded and robust in their views, and they will be frank and honest if the bill makes no practical difference. It is clear that island proofing is a step in the right direction.

Other members have said that there is a strong case for retrospective impact assessments to be carried out, and I hope that the Government takes heed of those calls. After all, how can we bring about substantial change in our island communities if we island proof only new legislation? I believe that the Government needs to look at relevant previous legislation and determine whether it is fit for the islands, too. That will be no mean feat, but if we want to get this right, we must attempt it.

Beyond the intricacies of the bill, many members have mentioned the difficulties that islanders face nowadays. They have an ageing population; they face high delivery charges, high building costs and high fuel costs; and far too many premises still do not have a broadband connection. An issue that many island communities mention to me is the risk of depopulation. Argyll and Bute has a particular problem in that respect. Reversing that trend must be at the heart of the bill.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity (Fergus Ewing)

As far as broadband is concerned, Mr Cameron knows that we have the £600 million reaching 100 per cent scheme, almost all of which is funded by the Scottish Government—the UK Government proposes to contribute only 3 per cent. Will Mr Cameron join us in calling on the UK Government to increase its contribution to that scheme from a measly and pathetic 3 per cent of the total?

Donald Cameron

I will not rise to the bait, although I will mention that I have spoken to a business that could have set up anywhere, but which did so in the Western Isles. It had to move away after a couple of years, because it did not have a good enough signal or broadband of sufficient quality. That is the reality.

I welcome the bill’s intentions, and I sincerely thank local authorities for their efforts in driving it forward. It is essential that its provisions do not become empty words. The Scottish Government needs to clarify the overarching aim of the plan, to incorporate in the process those councils that have already worked so hard in developing it and to ensure that the bill is meaningful for all our island communities.

16:04  

Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)

As a non-declaration of interests, I say that there are no islands in my constituency. However, I am a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, so I thank the clerks and all who gave evidence during stage 1.

I particularly enjoyed the opportunity to visit Mull and to hear at first hand how the bill will impact positively on communities. That was the only island visit that I managed to go on.

We have had much ground-breaking legislation in Parliament recently: the bill is certainly in that category. It aims to offer greater powers to the islands local authorities and to meet the specific challenges of their communities. Our island communities face a host of issues including depopulation, housing, transport and jobs. We must accept that the challenges in addressing those issues are different from the challenges in addressing similar issues on the mainland, which is why we need the bill.

The bill includes giving islands councils powers over activities that take place on or around their coastlines—the hope being that communities there can benefit from greater empowerment. I welcome the positive contributions of the islands authorities, which have fought for more powers for a long time.

The main principles of the bill include the creation of a national islands plan, which will set out the main objectives and strategies of the Scottish Government, including greater flexibility around councillor representation in island communities. I believe that my colleague Richard Lyle will talk a bit more about that later. It also includes extending to islands councils powers in relation to marine licensing.

I want to concentrate on a couple of areas. Tourism is probably most relevant to me. I recall my first trip to Skye many years ago—I say that Skye is an island—on a clear weekend with beautiful scenery and eagles flying in the sky. On the Sunday, it was difficult to find open shops or to get fuel for the car. Those were all new experiences.

As a member of the committee, how do I hope the bill will benefit tourism? Better transport and accessibility should increase tourism. People can fall in love with places like Skye and want to stay there, which helps to address depopulation issues.

The £6 million rural tourism infrastructure fund was announced by the First Minister in October to support sustainable growth in rural tourism across Scotland. The latest figures indicate notable increases in visitor numbers to rural tourism sites, and I am pleased with that. I know that Skye is one of those areas, but there was a lot of bad press about it which, I have to confess, I do not totally understand. I would have thought that an increase would be a good thing, but I stand to be corrected if that is not the case. Of course, we also have the “Outlander” effect at the moment, which means that people are visiting Historic Environment Scotland sites.

We have also touched on the broadband issue: it is talked about a lot in the chamber and at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Achieving better connectivity through providing broadband and through making it faster where it already exists will provide more scope for people to run sustainable businesses. Business brings people, which is good for island communities.

The SNP will build on earlier successes and, through the reaching 100 per cent programme—R100—and its £600 million, we will deliver a future-proofed national fibre broadband network that will make rural Scotland one of the best-connected places in Europe, and will underpin future economic growth. By the end of 2021, Scotland will be the only part of the UK where every single home and business can access superfast broadband. That is the level of commitment to all our communities.

It is worth mentioning equalities: the committee report welcomes the potential of the bill to improve equalities. In evidence, we heard about occupational segregation between men and women on the islands, and about issues around equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities.

We did not take a lot of evidence on Brexit but, again, question marks hang over the status of EU citizens who work in our tourism and other sectors. On human rights, we discussed the lack of nursing homes and foster placements, and what people do when they need those services. People often need to leave the islands to go into a home, for example.

It is also worth mentioning how we scrutinised the bill. My colleague Jenny Gilruth is on the record talking about how the committee is all male, apart from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. It is worth recognising that we scrutinised the bill in that context. We should reflect on that.

Presiding Officer—you will know that I always take time to talk about my constituency in every debate in which I speak. From the outside, it might seem as though there is no link between the bill and Coatbridge and Chryston. In my opinion, that is untrue. One of the themes in committee was that many of the issues that island communities face are also faced on the rural mainland, as Gail Ross and others have mentioned.

This innovative bill can perhaps lead the way and teach us how to proof all our communities. I was born and raised in the largest and most urban part of my constituency—Coatbridge—but since being elected I have made it my business to understand the village communities that make up the Chryston part of the constituency name. There are some striking similarities with what we have heard about the islands. All the villages—Stepps, Chryston, Moodiesburn, Gartcosh, Glenboig and Muirhead—have fairly small populations but unique identities and issues, and they have passionate communities.

Working-class Moodiesburn has shocking poverty and health statistics, and is home to the Auchengeich miners memorial site, but, ironically, it has very little in the way of health and leisure facilities. There is a feeling that it has been left out in the transfer of the health boards. In more affluent Stepps, where many older people live, the last bank in town, the Royal Bank of Scotland, is being stripped from the community, and those people also face the closure of the only care home that covers the whole village area. The issue in those towns, including Gartcosh, is perhaps expansion rather than depopulation. We maybe need to think about how village identities can be maintained and how people’s voices can be heard. The list could go on—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No it cannot, because you have had your six minutes.

Fulton MacGregor

The Islands (Scotland) Bill can lead on those issues for all communities.

16:11  

Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Action to support Scotland’s islands is a good thing, but we need to be clear about what kind of action is needed and on which islands. That is why part 1 of the bill is important. Definitions matter; no amount of detailed provision will achieve the desired effect if the definitions fail to make it clear where the law will apply, or if the definitions are too narrow. I could mention the High Hedges (Scotland) Act 2013 as a recent example of such a failure, but that is for another day.

This bill’s definition of “island”, as we have heard, is now uncontroversial, and that is good. The problem is that the bill makes a distinction in law between inhabited and uninhabited islands, which in the context of the history and culture of Scotland’s islands is unnecessary and undesirable.

New legal categories such as “inhabited island”, “permanently inhabited island” and “island communities” are not required in order to deliver the policy purposes of the bill; island communities are not defined by counting heads.

For example, the isle of Harris, which I know well, is a permanently inhabited island with a very strong sense of identity and community. However, the community of Harris does not stop at its beaches—fabulous though so many of them are. The inhabited islands of Scalpay and Berneray off Harris are strong communities in their own right and more than meet the criteria in the bill. They are also part of the community of Hearachs—Harris people—and they are seen as such by the people who live there and by those who live on Harris itself.

The wider community does not stop there. Taransay, Scarp, Ensay and St Kilda all ceased to be permanently inhabited in the 20th century, and Pabbay was cleared for sheep in the 19th century. That does not mean that they have ceased to be islands with a history and culture of their own, nor does it mean that they have ceased to be part of the wider community of Harris.

St Kilda is well known. It is a world heritage site that belongs to the National Trust for Scotland, which works to conserve and protect the natural environment and the cultural heritage of the St Kilda islands in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Ministry of Defence.

Taransay hit the nation’s television screens with the series “Castaway”, which was one of the first—and certainly one of the best—reality TV series of this century. Scarp is famous for the experiment in rocket post in the 1930s, when people still lived there all year round. Pabbay and Ensay are less well known, but they are still included in the common grazings of crofters in Harris.

A definition of islands communities that excludes any or all of those islands would not reflect the community of Harris as it is understood by Hearachs, and an islands plan that covered Berneray but not Ensay would fail to address in a holistic and joined-up way the challenges that our islands face.

It is misguided, too, to create a legal category of “permanently inhabited” islands. The Law Society of Scotland objects that there is no such concept in Scots law, and proposes “ordinary residence” instead, but in fact neither of those constraints on the application of the bill is necessary or useful.

As far as local council wards are concerned, people included in the register of electors would count, so there is no need for further definition in that regard. However, if there are permanently inhabited islands, then there are, by implication, permanently uninhabited islands too, which is a notion that most islanders would strongly reject.

If Harris crofters can land their sheep on Ensay, that island is within the scope of human habitation, even if there is no one living there at the moment. When I went out to the Shiant Islands on a fast RIB—rigid-inflatable boat—last summer, there were clothes drying on a line next to a house on what this bill will, by default, define as an uninhabited island. What is true for Harris and its satellite islands is surely true for all the island groups, from Shetland to the islands of the Firth of Clyde. Island plans, which could include only permanently inhabited islands and exclude their neighbours, would not properly deal with whole island groups and communities.

For example, as I mentioned to the minister earlier, the policy intention of the bill is said to be to extend the provisions of the Zetland County Council Act 1974 to other island local authorities, but in fact it will limit island licensing areas to areas including an inhabited island. I can find no such limitation in the Zetland County Council Act, which means that the bill potentially reduces the scope of that act in the Shetland Islands—never mind extending it to other islands.

Neither human habitation nor the lack of it defines an island, nor should depopulation ever be defined by this Parliament as “permanent”. Islands that have been emptied of people can be inhabited again, as Vatersay has been. Where that has not been achieved, repopulation is often still the aspiration of those who once lived there or their descendants. To maximise the future potential for living communities in our islands we should plan for each and all of our island groups as whole groups and not only for the currently inhabited parts. If we take that approach, we can also envisage them in a holistic way from the point of view of nature conservation, protecting native species from invasive species, and maximising the tourism and economic potential of all our islands—inhabited or otherwise.

A national islands plan must cover all our islands—those that are inhabited only in the summer, those that are inhabited all year round and those that are currently uninhabited. That way, we can really deliver in support for our island communities the step change that they need and deserve.

16:17  

Kate Forbes (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)

Our islands are not mini museums, visitor centres or somebody’s play park. They are homes, for the most part. It has never been so important to promote islanders’ voices, to harness islands’ resources and to enhance the wellbeing of island communities. We talk about remoteness, but the islands are not so much remote from Edinburgh as Edinburgh and London are remote from the islands. That is why the term “island proofing”, which has been used frequently in the debate, is so important, because islanders face changes in healthcare, education and public services, as they develop the huge renewable energy potential of their natural resources, and as they use community empowerment legislation and the £10 million community land fund to turn their ideas into reality.

As I see it, all that has one aim: to reverse the trend of depopulation on the islands. One of the greatest challenges, for example, remains recruiting and retaining staff in public services. Another challenge is enabling private businesses to grow by giving them access to talent pools. Just yesterday, the UK Government blocked a Canadian Gaelic teacher from coming to Scotland and starting her new job as a primary school teacher on the Isle of Mull after the role had been vacant for six months. There are serious questions about recruitment and retention, and about skills and talent pools, and the last thing that we should be doing is clamping down on immigration.

One size does not fit all. Highland Council does what it can in an area the size of Belgium and with a coastline that, including islands, is more than 20 per cent of Scotland’s total coastline. Changes that are rubber-stamped in Inverness, Edinburgh or London must recognise the geography of our island communities, where ferry timetables, stormy weather and long distances have got to be factored in. The bill is needed because decision making is not always sufficiently island proofed at the moment. I will give two negative examples of that, followed by two positive examples of where it works.

On healthcare, I have been fighting for overnight out-of-hours cover on the Isle of Raasay for almost two years since I was elected, but NHS Highland has still not recruited somebody to cover those out-of-hours overnight periods on an island whose link to the mainland ceases to exist at 6 pm every night when the ferry stops running and does not recommence until the next morning. It is not possible to hop in the car and get help and it is not always possible for emergency services to dock or land in stormy weather, so why is there still no out-of-hours overnight cover on the Isle of Raasay?

Over the water in Skye, island residents in the far north depend on out-of-hours urgent care in Portree but, despite the hard work and dedication of doctors and nurses there, the too-frequent suspension of that out-of-hours cover is not acceptable, because it is not sustainable.

Edward Mountain

I speak at this point as an individual, not as the convener of the committee, as I did earlier. One of the things about people moving to live on islands is the fact that that requires a huge commitment from families. Surely part of the island-proofing process must be to ensure that contracts are sufficiently long term to attract people. That is one of the messages that we should put across.

Kate Forbes

I agree. Contracts have to be long term and there have to be decent salaries, but consideration also has to be given to alternative jobs in island communities. That goes back to clamping down on immigration. A lot of people who are working in our health service have come from beyond the UK. We should actively recruit people with the necessary skills in education and healthcare to move to our islands, as we saw with the very effective recruitment campaign for the Isle of Muck.

The Government has a good track record in adapting policy to islands and rural communities, such as the £5 million island housing fund that complements the £25 million rural housing fund. That is vital because the gap between average incomes and average house prices in our remote communities is too wide, and it is not helped by the high number of holiday homes.

Our island residents know the meaning of the word “resilience”. The people of Muck, Rum, Canna, Eigg, Raasay and Skye, to name just a few, have known it for centuries. I am sympathetic to John Scott’s point about including remote and rural parts of the mainland, too, given that my family comes from Applecross.

I will close with a brief story, which could just as easily be applied to islands, about how Governments can make or break communities by either investing in them or ignoring them. In August 1883, in a village near Applecross, my great-great-grandfather appeared before the Napier commission to plead for a road. He told the commissioners that 400 people were living in the 12 villages on the north coast of the peninsula and that there were three primary schools but no road. The people promised to build the road themselves and they promised to raise their rents, but the Government would not build them a road. Over the next 100 years, people left and the schools closed. Finally, in the 1970s a bulldozer appeared to blast through the rock as Government funds were finally found to build a road because the Ministry of Defence needed the inner sound for a torpedo range. That is history, but it is the context to the bill. That is why I believe that the bill is making history.

16:23  

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

As an MSP representing the Highlands and Islands, and as an Orcadian, I welcome the introduction of the bill and the commencement of its legislative process. I extend my thanks to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for its stage 1 report and the scrutiny work that it has undertaken.

Scotland’s island communities are distinct societies with distinct identities within Scotland and the wider United Kingdom. Those communities have long histories that are intertwined with but often separate from Scotland as a whole.

I was only four years old when my family moved home to Orkney in 1979. There is no doubt that, even since then, the islands have changed. We have welcomed many newcomers to our shores over the centuries, and they have made a huge and positive contribution to island life, but our rich and distinct island heritage has not been lost and, importantly, it needs to be recognised, cherished and protected.

In one way, the bill is unusual—it was not introduced at the behest of a political party, but resulted from the campaigning of the islands’ representatives themselves. I welcome the fact that this work, led by the island authorities—particularly through the our islands, our future campaign—is raising the particular needs of island communities up the political agenda, at both Scottish and UK levels.

It is fundamental to any attempt to build and expand local democracy that communities are involved from the outset, and that their views and our views are taken into account throughout the process. A key part of this islands agenda will be the agreement of a coherent and robust national islands plan by the Scottish Government. The bill enables this but does not develop it; the islands agenda will be on-going and it must receive the attention and resources that it merits in the coming months and years.

As mentioned by my colleague Edward Mountain, who spoke on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, the islands each have their own individual identities. I support the committee’s broad objective to ensure that local authorities also have island-level planning. We often speak of the islands facing challenges—in the delivery of public services, the availability of local employment, in relation to local infrastructure and in ensuring their communities’ sustainability for the generations ahead. In that, as John Scott and Gail Ross mentioned, the islands share many of the issues that are faced by remote and rural communities in mainland Scotland, where public services may be distant and connectivity may be poor. The islands serve as a helpful reminder that policy decisions made in Edinburgh must work not just for the populated central belt or the lowlands, but for Scotland in its entirety.

The bill’s commitment to island impact assessments is welcome and expectations are high that the Scottish Government and the 66 public bodies referenced in the bill will take full notice of the outcome of those assessments and address the need to mitigate policy choices that may have a negative effect on island communities.

In its response to the committee, the Scottish Government outlined that it accepted in principle that retrospective assessment of policies could take place where specific issues are highlighted. Additional clarity from ministers on how such a mechanism could be triggered would be welcome, because it is clear that there are policy decisions that have held the islands back. We know from recent figures that the islands lag seriously behind mainland Scotland and the rest of the UK in access to broadband as well as 4G connectivity and yet these are communities where, in many cases, the benefits of such connectivity could be greater than the benefits for mainland communities.

The wider point is that the impact must be interpreted as being about examining not only where islands are disadvantaged by change, but where they are left behind when change is being implemented in mainland communities. Within the island authorities, additional issues are often faced by the smaller islands, particularly in Orkney and Shetland. I am concerned that insufficient attention has been paid to those cases, where public services can often be at their most distant.

Sometimes, the wrong sort of investment can be a problem. During a trip to Westray, one of Orkney’s islands, in 2016, some residents told me that the broadband roll-out has left them with a less reliable and slower service than the satellite connections they had been encouraged to move away from. Island-level planning, as I mentioned previously, is one solution, but equally, island needs must be considered as part of wider planning from the Scottish Government.

Kate Forbes mentioned health services. At the end of last year, I spoke to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport about the challenges facing Stronsay’s general practice; NHS Orkney suspended the resident medical team and reduced the service pending a review. Such services are vital and their importance should be understood across all tiers of government.

The private sector is of course a key provider of services to the islands. Although Orkney and Shetland have not been affected by the current round of RBS branch closures, we often see businesses and residents struggling when key services move away. The committee certainly recognised that the Scottish Government cannot place requirements on the private sector—although the Government’s response contained some welcome points on procurement—but I suggest that ministers could, in some cases, assess the level of access to such services as part of a wider view of island communities and their sustainability. That can affect how public services ought to be delivered, as well as highlight opportunities where the Scottish Government may be able to exert influence to positive effect.

There is hope on the islands that the bill could serve as a first step in giving greater recognition at the heart of Government to the priorities of island communities. Although I have joined colleagues and the committee in noting a number of concerns and areas in which further detail would be helpful, the bill remains a positive starting point for those discussions.

16:29  

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

I am delighted to contribute to this stage 1 debate on the Islands (Scotland) Bill, particularly as a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which takes a keen interest in the areas that the bill addresses. I pay tribute to all who gave evidence, the clerks, the convener and members of the committee, and, of course, Humza Yousaf, the Minister for Transport and the Islands.

I begin by reflecting on how historic, frankly, the bill can and will be. It will address the unique needs of Scotland’s islands, now and in the future. I hope that it will create the right environment for sustainable growth and, importantly, that it will empower communities. The development of the bill has had many milestones, and it is only right to acknowledge the Government’s work in getting us to where we are. I refer in particular to the work of the island areas ministerial working group, which responded to the our islands, our future campaign of Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council and Western Isles Council in 2013.

In 2014, the group published the prospectus “Empowering Scotland’s Island Communities”, which confirmed a commitment to principles of subsidiarity and local governance. The prospectus included a series of measures that were unanimously endorsed by the group, and the group reflected those principles by adopting the idea that decisions about island communities are best determined if they are made by those who know them best—the island communities themselves. The development of the measures was based on three fundamental objectives: promoting the voices of the islanders; harnessing island resources; and enhancing the wellbeing of our island communities.

In November 2014, the Government fulfilled the commitment that was made in the prospectus. I believe that the Government continues to provide a focus on the issues that are most important to all Scotland’s island communities and a voice for those communities at its centre.

A key commitment in the SNP manifesto in 2016 was that the party would

“consult on, and bring forward, an Islands Bill to reflect the unique needs of these communities and implement our ten-point manifesto for our islands”.

In addition, in its programme for government that year, the Government announced:

“to help the islands build a more prosperous and fairer future for their communities, we will introduce an Islands Bill and the new Islands Strategic Group will meet for the first time in the autumn to begin its work on the creation of a National Islands Plan”.

This is, indeed, a historic moment. The bill can be thought of as a key point—the culmination of many efforts made over the years by the SNP Government to deliver for our island communities.

Of course, we will always continue to do more and deliver the best outcomes for all Scotland’s communities. That is why the SNP has already invested £6 million in the rural tourism fund, which was announced by the First Minister on 10 October to support sustainable growth in rural tourism across Scotland, but especially in our island communities. We heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution that there is a further commitment in the budget to deliver for our island communities through the funding that has been assigned.

As a member of the REC Committee, I was delighted that it recommended to Parliament that the general principles of the bill be agreed. The committee’s consideration of the bill meant an opportunity for members to visit areas. I took part in visits to Mull and Orkney, as well as engaging digitally with Arran islanders and islanders who attend the University of the Highlands and Islands. All that engagement by the committee helped us to better understand the context in which the bill sits.

I am particularly pleased about the proposal to look at improved councillor representation for the islands. I am sure that that issue will be looked at closely as the bill progresses, and I hope that the Boundary Commission for Scotland will work closely with local authorities that have islands to ensure that they have the number of councillors that they deserve.

I was a councillor for 36 years, and I know that the needs of constituents require attention daily. I have been reminded that I was a councillor for a year before Jamie Halcro Johnston was born. [Laughter.] I agree that I look young for my age. Islanders must have the representation that they deserve so that their needs are represented in local authorities. There is a suggestion that island councillors may have a closer working arrangement with the council administration; many of them would welcome that, and I hope that it will happen.

I am also pleased by the record support for Scotland’s islands by our SNP Government as we work to tackle the many changes and challenges faced by island communities. Of course, that work can only be done, as it has been, by working in partnership with island communities, local authorities and other organisations to support the delivery of policy and change. Local authority partners and the Scottish Government have shown that, by working together, we can deliver positive outcomes in all our communities.

With regard to how the bill’s ambitions will be delivered, the bill requires the Government to island proof future legislation and policies. That means that, by law, our island communities will not be forgotten again and will always have a voice. Scottish ministers and relevant public bodies will be required to take into account the interests of island communities. I believe that they will do that. I wish the bill well.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Rhoda Grant to close for Labour in six minutes or thereabouts. I see that you have got my cold, Ms Grant—although it is not mine but one that is going round.

16:35  

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

I sincerely wish that you had kept it to yourself, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.]

We on the Labour benches are happy to support the Islands (Scotland) Bill. It has the potential to make a step change in how islands are governed by empowering them to make decisions that affect their own future. However, the bill as it stands is far too timid and will achieve nothing unless it is strengthened. As David Stewart said, the bill is a tribute to the work of the three islands councils and their vision in the our islands, our future campaign. I hope that we can strengthen the bill to realise their dream.

We need high-level objectives in the bill, but I was disappointed to hear that the minister appears not to be keen on that. At the moment, the bill is simply warm words. It needs to be clear about why we are legislating. Colin Smyth said that the bill needs to have ambition in order for it to meet its aspirations. There are high expectations of what the bill can and will do, but those are not in the bill in its current form.

I believe that we need to have high-level expectations in the bill in relation to issues such as depopulation, which Donald Cameron spoke about. Last week, Community Land Scotland put forward a submission on the Planning (Scotland) Bill that addressed the issue of repopulation. Lewis Macdonald illustrated that issue in much more detail in his speech than I will be able to in this one when he talked about Taransay, St Kilda and Scarp and giving life to the policy of repopulation in places that were depopulated in the past. Angus MacDonald illustrated that point well from a personal point of view when he talked about the “scunnered factor” in illustrating why people leave. They do so because they have had enough: they fight against the elements for so long, but eventually they cannot fight any more and they leave.

That point has been recognised by the EU, and I think that that is why so many of us have concerns about Brexit. The EU recognises subsidiarity—David Stewart talked about that in some detail—and the need for local decision making. It also recognises that certain areas have permanent handicaps, which is true of our island communities.

John Scott

Does the member acknowledge that, regrettably, the desertification that she describes as taking place in the islands is also a feature of our remote and rural communities, and that it is a much wider problem, which needs to be addressed?

Rhoda Grant

Indeed I do. I come from an area where that has happened, and I recognise that it happens in remote and rural areas. However, it is worse in the islands because people have to cross the sea to get to services. We can find answers to some of those questions through the bill, and those answers could then be rolled out throughout rural areas as good practice, to everyone’s benefit. It is not about pitting people against people; it is about trying to find better ways to support communities and repopulate areas, which is incredibly important.

Some more work is needed on island impact assessments, or island proofing, because I do not think that all the organisations that affect islands and islanders’ wellbeing are covered. We must look at the list of bodies that will need to island proof their policies, and the Government must issue clear guidelines on how they are to carry out the impact assessments—Mike Rumbles made that point in his speech.

There must be a mechanism for a right of appeal, otherwise island proofing will just become a tick-box exercise, which will not help anyone. We also need retrospective assessments, and there must be a mechanism in the bill for that, too. John Finnie said that not all legislation should be revisited, and of course he is right. However, we all know of pieces of legislation that have serious impacts on island communities. We need to look back and, where there is a united expectation that things are going to be dealt with and enough people are asking for it, there needs to be a mechanism to allow that to happen.

So much of the bill hangs on the national islands plan. Very little detail appears in the bill and we are promised that all the detail will be contained in the islands plan. The bill should state the overarching principles, while the islands plan should say how they will be followed. It is important that there is an islands plan, but we must also recognise that all islands are different, and the plan must cover those differences as well as what binds islands together.

One example of how we can island proof—and indeed of how the islands plan needs to work—is to recognise how the islands differ. John Finnie talked about local contractors. When we were on Orkney, we noticed that the local hospital had put in a wood-burning stove. They have no wood in Orkney, but they have loads of cheap electricity, so that seemed absolutely crazy and a really bad policy.

John Mason talked about how the committee went out and about to a lot of the islands. My colleague Colin Smyth said to me that I had all the fun on the committee and now he has the heavy lifting to do, but I see those islands all the time. It is a real privilege to represent all but two of Scotland’s inhabited islands. I have a distinct knowledge of what they need if we are to make a real difference, and it is ambition. The three islands councils had the ambition to come forward with the our islands, our future campaign, which brought the legislation to this stage. We need to meet that ambition and those expectations and strengthen the bill at stage 2.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Jamie Greene to close for the Conservatives. You have eight minutes, please, Mr Greene.

16:42  

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

Presiding Officer,

“No man is an island, entire of itself”.

Those are, of course, the famous words not of John Mason but of John Donne in his famous 17th century poem, but the reality is that islands are entire of themselves in many ways: they face a unique set of challenges that mainlanders do not always face or even understand. A weekend in Millport or a week in August on the Isle of Arran might give people a flavour of the beauty of our islands or the warm reception that visitors receive there, but it probably does not give them an inside perspective on the difficulties that locals face.

Our island constituents come to us as members of the Scottish Parliament and rightfully point out discrepancies in access to public services, be it someone who needs to travel to the mainland to see a hospital consultant being given an appointment before the arrival of the first ferry, or the cost of importing goods when people are trying build a home of their own on an island. They all share common difficulties including the cost of petrol on islands, the lack of mains gas, the inflated prices of groceries and, often, the poor state of many of their roads.

Scotland’s 93 islands make up 2 per cent of our population, but the population of many of them and the business that is done there will balloon during the busy peak season. They are at the very heart of what makes Scotland unique on the international stage. Tourists flock to visit their distilleries, climb their mountains and sail their coasts. However, they are also home to people. Their thriving communities face harsh weather conditions, making connectivity tricky, and although their economies have changed and evolved, many are still struggling. In addition, their public services are struggling to recruit and retain doctors, teachers and carers. Kate Forbes eloquently outlined some practical examples of the illogical provision of public services.

Although many policies that aim to improve island life are welcome, such as RET, we also took evidence from islanders on some of the negative effects that inflated visitor numbers can have on the infrastructure of islands. Those islands that have not seen an exodus of their enthusiastic young generation are growing, but with an ageing population, as many flock to retire on islands and enjoy the next chapter of their lives with the stunning views and friendly communities that islands offer. All of that comes at a price, and we have a responsibility to address those challenges.

My colleague John Scott reminded us that the bill was not born out of top-down Government or party-political motivations, but has grown from a grass-roots need to look at how public bodies address inequalities on islands. For that reason, I, too, commend the work of the our islands, our future campaign.

As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I have been privileged to have had a glimpse into island life through our visits and evidence sessions. While we sit in the wood-lined committee rooms here at Holyrood, it is easy to forget that the work that we do here affects those on the other side of a Loganair flight.

Islands are diverse and as different as rural Scotland is to urban Scotland. Indeed, island groups themselves often struggle with the remoteness of some of their own island communities, who feel as though their island’s mainland is just as disconnected from them as the mainland’s mainland. Our committee took a trip to Mull and Orkney, and we spoke to people with that very view. It is neither a criticism of the bill nor an expression of disappointment in it to say that, by its very nature, it is a one-size-fits-all measure, because it has to meet its objective as an enabling bill. However, we should remember that such an approach will not work for our communities when it comes to the national islands plan. As Edward Mountain and Colin Smyth mentioned, each island has an individual identity that must be taken into account in the production of the plan.

I would also like to touch briefly on some of the other issues that were raised today. In the committee’s evidence sessions, HIE made some important comments—they have also been made by members in the debate—about the issues that are faced by islands being the same as those that are faced by other remote rural communities. Although the bill is focused on islands, its consequences should not negatively affect or impact other rural communities: if anything, it is an opportunity to have a positive influence on them.

Much has also been said about the request from the committee, in its report, that the Government should consider a high-level aim or objective for the bill. I should add that that request came not from MSPs but from members of the community. I recall sitting around the table with a group on our visit to Mull. There was unanimous agreement that what was lacking in the bill was a high-level objective, which meant that it was difficult to see what its overarching outcome would be. It was felt that, rather than saying just that we should “have regard to” islands, it should have measurable objectives so that we, as a Parliament, could look back and decide whether the bill had achieved what it was meant to. Notwithstanding the legal implications around the language that might be used to achieve that, I ask the minister not to rule it out, given the broad support for it.

Another important issue that was raised was the retrospective scope of the bill. I agree that it would be unreasonable to propose a blanket retrospective assessment of all current policies or all service changes that have been made by every public body since devolution. However, there may be existing policies that could and should be looked at if they are currently deemed to be negatively affecting islands, and we need to ask what the mechanism for doing that is. In a similar vein, the committee recommended that islanders should have a clear mechanism to appeal against or object to an island impact assessment decision.

Perhaps the issue around the bill that carried the most contention was that of expectations. The concept of island proofing has been discussed at great length, both in the committee and in the chamber. The term “island proofing” has been used interchangeably with “island impact assessments”, but the two things are not the same. Much could be said about whether we can properly island proof all decisions that are made by all public bodies and all Government departments. If we were truly to do so, the cost would be unparalleled and probably unthinkable. The biggest risk facing us as we present the bill to Parliament and to the communities that it seeks to serve is that of raising false hope and expectations.

Many members spoke with concern about the financing of the bill and the need for clarity over the effect that it has on funding decisions. At present, the only costs that are outlined in the financial memorandum relate to delivery of the duties in the bill. I want to put this into context: this is not about Opposition parties asking for more money. Instead, it is an honest realisation by us all that true island proofing comes at a cost.

I am pleased to support the bill as a welcome step forward in how the Government and its public agencies address our island communities. We must ensure that its outcome is a robust national islands plan that reflects islanders’ priorities and which has clear outcomes and targets and measurable indicators. We must have honesty and transparency from Government to ensure that, when it makes decisions that might have a negative impact on islanders, it is honest about them and accepts that resources or funds might not be available to mitigate the consequences of every action that it takes. The bill’s end product should be a tangible and noticeable shift in mindset when decisions are made in the lofty offices of Government in Glasgow and Edinburgh that affect people on islands. We cannot just have warm words without any action or weight.

I ask the minister to consider the recommendations of the stage 1 report in his response. We welcome the bill, but policy decisions that are being made today should already be mainstreamed and ingrained in the culture. We do not need a bill to consider islands—that kind of work can be done today. Expectations are high among islanders, and we cannot let them down.

16:51  

Humza Yousaf

This has been an excellent debate, and the speeches across the chamber have certainly given me and my officials a lot to reflect on.

I will try to address some key themes but, first, I note that the debate has been largely consensual. There has even been praise from some members of the Opposition. I am sure that this will not be the kiss of death to him, but if there was one member of the Opposition I would want praise from, it would be David Stewart. Without him, I would never have known about the Japanese Remote Islands Development Act of 1953. After hearing about it at the committee, I looked it up for the purposes of research; although most of the information was in Japanese, I now know that in Japan there are 421 inhabited islands out of a total of 7,000. Every day is an education with David Stewart as a committee member.

As I have said, I want to address some of the key themes of the debate, and I want to get right into the issue of expectation management, which I believe was raised by almost every speaker. When I have travelled to the islands, I have tried to ensure that people do have expectations for the bill, but I have also pointed out that we are doing more than what is in the bill itself. We are taking forward a whole suite of measures for our islands; for example, there is the Scottish Crown Estate Bill, the community empowerment legislation and, indeed, the national islands plan. I want to ensure that the bill is seen not in isolation but as part of a suite of measures.

Many members also talked about putting a high-level objective into the bill. I have listened to the reasoning and rationale behind that proposal; although I am not convinced, I accept that many members across the chamber are, and I therefore promise to reflect further on the matter. I would say, though, that a reason for not putting a high-level objective into the bill is that it would not have any meaningful legal effect, which is, after all, why legislation should be there. It could be in the national islands plan or guidance, but I hear what the chamber is saying in that respect.

Mike Rumbles

Of course, in the Scotland Act 1998, Donald Dewar famously said:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament.”

That is the sort of high-level objective that we are talking about. Surely if it was good enough for the Scotland Act 1998, it is good enough for this bill.

Humza Yousaf

Somebody else made the same point about the Scotland Act 1998. As I have said, I am not closed minded; I will listen to members. Indeed, I suspect that members will lodge an amendment at stage 2 to that effect. Let us not be closed minded about this.

As for some of the other important issues and key themes that have been raised in the debate, I note that, with regard to the suite of measures that we are taking forward, some members mentioned the financial memorandum and suggested that the finances for the national islands plan have not been accounted for. However, the fact is that I do not have a crystal ball. The plan is not just my plan; it is our plan, and every single one of us will be involved in its development. I will be discussing with the cabinet secretary, who is sitting to my left, the financial resource that will need to be put behind it once it has been developed.

Many members also mentioned statutory local island plans. As I said in my response to the committee, I will have that conversation with local authorities; indeed, I would rather do this with the authorities instead of imposing it on them. However, I am very aware of what members have said about that. I suspect that it will come about organically, anyway.

Other key themes that were mentioned in relation to the national islands plan concerned having national targets and measures that can be monitored and evaluated. I agree that the national islands plan has to be meaningful, and perhaps measurable targets and so on will be part of that. As I said, the national islands plan will be a consultative effort and I will therefore not be closed minded to such suggestions.

Gail Ross and Colin Smyth mentioned the need to give consideration to having national heritage in the bill. Again, that might be something that we can consider in the national islands plan. Once again, to continue the theme that I have followed since the beginning of this bill process, I will not be closed minded to that suggestion.

Gail Ross

Alongside the issue of heritage, does the minister agree that the massive renewable energy potential of the Scottish islands still needs to be realised?

Humza Yousaf

Yes, without a doubt. Of course, for many places to which I have travelled, such as Orkney, the issue of renewable energy is not just about the beneficial impact that it can bring but about the innovative technology that is being tested. Of course, we welcome the UK Government’s U-turn on this issue, which was brought about through pressure from my colleagues Paul Wheelhouse and Fergus Ewing among many others.

The chamber has clearly said that there needs to be some clarity about the definition of island proofing and island impact assessments. We will absolutely reflect on that. I should say that island impact assessments involve a process that is similar to the process for equality impact assessments. We have an extremely robust process for screening, evidence gathering, assessing, decision making, signing off and publishing. However, clearly, all of us agree that we do not want to have a simple tick-box exercise. Therefore, we will ensure that we reflect on the issues before the statutory guidance goes forward.

Jamie Greene

What does the minister think will happen in the event that an island impact assessment produces an outcome that states that a Government policy decision will have a negative impact on island communities? Is it likely that that decision would be reconsidered at that stage or that additional funds might be provided to mitigate the consequences of the decision? In practical terms, that would be real island proofing.

Humza Yousaf

I am conscious of time, so I will send Jamie Greene the example that I have just given of the equality impact assessment. Because of the five stages in the equality impact assessment, the scenario that he mentions should generally be avoided. That is one example, and I will send that to him.

I want to make some progress, because my time is limited. On the issue of island proofing, I refer to the point that Kate Forbes made very well about immigration. Undoubtedly, one of the biggest challenges that our islands face is depopulation. It would be useful if the UK Government could consider what we are going to do in relation to island proofing because, although we have some of the levers in our hands, many of the other levers that would help to reverse the trajectory of depopulation are in the hands of the UK Government.

I thought that Gail Ross, John Scott and others made good points about rural proofing as well as island proofing. Having travelled across much of Scotland, I know that the challenges that are faced by rural communities may well be just as challenging and difficult as those that are faced by many of our island communities.

David Stewart

Will the member take an intervention?

Humza Yousaf

I have only a minute left, but as the member is my favourite member of the Opposition, I will of course give way.

David Stewart

That just ruined my career.

I would like the minister to clarify a technical point. Will the Zetland County Council Act 1974 and the Orkney County Council Act 1974 be repealed or replaced?

Humza Yousaf

No; we have no intention of doing that.

In the time that I have left, I will address the points that were made by Mr Stewart’s colleague Lewis Macdonald. They were largely the points that were made in the submission from the Law Society, which I thought was useful and helpful. The definition of island community goes beyond geography. Section 2(b) makes clear that the meaning of the phrase goes beyond geography, saying that it

“is based on common interest, identity or geography.”

The definitions in the bill work for the purposes required. Uninhabited islands can absolutely be covered by the national islands plan—we have said that already.

Lewis Macdonald made many points about potential unintended consequences, and although I cannot go into them all given that I am in the last minute of my speech, we will reflect on the Law Society’s submission.

The Islands (Scotland) Bill is historic—I am pleased that members from all parties recognise that. Although I am proud to be the minister to introduce the bill, I must thank my predecessors—including the first-ever minister with responsibility for the islands, Derek Mackay—the local authorities, the islands strategic group and the committee, which gave such careful consideration to the bill. If we get it right, as we intend to, and take the other measures that I have talked about, I hope that we will reverse the depopulation of our islands.

We know that our islands represent 2 per cent of the population of Scotland, but their value to Scotland is immeasurable. As a boy who was born, bred and raised in Glasgow, it has been a great pleasure and honour for me to travel to 30-plus islands across Scotland. I intend to do the bill justice. I thank members for their careful consideration, speeches and suggestions. I look forward to passing what will be a historic piece of legislation.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S5M-09803, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution for the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Islands (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Derek Mackay]

The Presiding Officer

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

There are two questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S5M-10358, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on the Islands (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

The second and final question is that motion S5M-09803, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution for the Islands (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Islands (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.

Meeting closed at 17:05.  

The Convener

Item 2 is stage 2 consideration of the Islands (Scotland) Bill. I welcome back the Minister for Transport and the Islands, Humza Yousaf, and his officials from the Scottish Government.

Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments that was published on Friday and the groupings paper, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated.

It might be helpful if I explain the procedure, albeit briefly. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call other members who have lodged amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If the minister has not spoken on the group, I will invite him to contribute to the debate just before I invite the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.

Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press it, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, I will ask whether any other member who is present objects to them doing so. If any other member who is present objects, I will put the question on the amendment.

If any member does not want to move their amendment when it is called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member who is present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.

Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division will be by raising of hands. I remind members that it is important that they keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote.

The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of and schedule to the bill, and I will put a question on each section and schedule at the appropriate point.

I have a note that says that we aim to complete stage 2 today. I doubt that that will be possible, but we will see how we get on.

Before section 1

The Convener

The first group is entitled “Purpose of Act”. Amendment 28, in the name of Colin Smyth, is the only amendment in the group.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

I am conscious that we have a number of amendments to get through today, so I will keep my comments relatively brief. As members will know, a purpose clause aims to state and clarify the overall aims of a bill to ensure that its purpose is explicitly stated in law. I believe that underpinning the purpose in law captures the overall spirit of the bill rather than just the letter of the law, and it helps to prevent the misinterpretation of passages and the dilution of ambition over time.

Island economies suffer because of geographical disadvantage and distance from markets. I believe that it must be the overall purpose of the Islands (Scotland) Bill to try to redress that disadvantage. Agreeing to include a purpose clause at this early stage will help us when we consider the detail of the individual provisions throughout stages 2 and 3. There are, of course, examples of purpose clauses in other legislation. I believe that including one in the bill will help to strengthen it, and it will certainly not weaken it.

I move amendment 28.

John Mason

As I said in the chamber yesterday, I am in favour of purpose clauses. I would like the Government and anyone else who intends to introduce a bill to start with a purpose clause and then write the rest of the bill. It is extremely difficult to come in at this stage, when the bill exists, and put in a purpose clause. However, I still fundamentally believe that a purpose clause should be included. Purpose clauses guide the lawyers—although I do not think that they particularly like it—and force them to do what Mr Smyth said and focus on the overall purpose.

I have three specific problems with the wording of the purpose in amendment 28. First, the word “create” suggests that sustainable island communities are not there to start with. In some cases, we want to continue sustainable island communities. Secondly, the amendment focuses purely on island communities but, as will be seen from my amendments, I am also interested in islands that do not have communities. Thirdly, it focuses purely on the economy, whereas we are looking at culture, the natural environment and various other issues as well.

Stewart Stevenson

I understand and have sympathy with what Colin Smyth is trying to do, but his amendment risks diluting the bill’s ambition. All it talks about is creating “sustainable island communities”, whereas section 3(2), which would come after the text in this amendment, is drawn more widely in referring to

“improving outcomes for island communities ... by ... carrying out of functions of a public nature.”

In other words, the bill is not simply about creating “sustainable island communities”; it might improve the outcomes for island communities in a way that does not directly address sustainability. That is the risk with the particular formulation that Colin Smyth has proposed and—subject, of course, to what I hear in the discussion—it would lead me not to support his amendment in its present form.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I am minded not to support amendment 28. Although we discussed the matter at stage 1 and thought that such a provision might be necessary, I do not feel that it is. As with the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, which was debated in Parliament yesterday, putting a purpose into a bill can limit it and make it too prescriptive. For that reason, I am not in favour of amendment 28.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Scotland Act 1998 says:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament.”

As Donald Dewar said, “I like that.” It is really important to set out the purpose of a piece of legislation in order to give us a flavour of what it does, and I commend Colin Smyth for lodging his amendment. It does not matter whether the wording in amendment 28 is the right wording for the purpose of the bill; the advantage of stage 2 is that we can discuss the issue. I hear what John Mason and Stewart Stevenson have said, and I understand that the minister is listening, but if the minister thinks that there is a better way of wording the purpose of the bill, he can lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 3 for the Parliament to consider.

I think that it is important that we start off stage 2 by saying, “Let’s support this amendment and put this in the bill.” I certainly took from the evidence that we gathered at stage 1 that islanders wanted some sort of purpose and felt that there was something missing from the bill. Colin Smyth’s amendment is a good start, and I am inclined to support it.

John Finnie

I am supportive of Colin Smyth’s amendment 28. Although I suspect that you would not want us to do this, convener, we could spend all day discussing every word and every possible interpretation. I think that Colin would confirm that no criticism is intended by the use of the word “create”; after all, we all know that we are far from a situation in which any of our island communities is entirely sustainable. As for the use of the term “sustainable”, I am sure that due regard will be had to the environment and to cultural and economic matters.

The amendment’s reference to building island economies would not ordinarily win Green support, were it not for its preamble about creating “sustainable communities”. Those economies will be built in no other way than an appropriate way if they are going to be sustainable in the first place. For those reasons, I will support amendment 28.

Jamie Greene

I strongly feel that the bill should have an objective, given the evidence that we have heard and after speaking to islanders at many of the focus groups. Those views are not necessarily our views, but they are the views of those whom we have met during this journey and process.

As for whether the words in amendment 28 are the ones that should be in the bill, I am minded to agree with Peter Chapman. I do not think that this is all-encompassing; however, I think that it is headed in the right direction. As a result, although I will not be supporting this particular amendment, I ask the minister to reflect on the strength of view among committee members that the bill should contain a purpose.

The problem with amendment 28 is that uninhabited islands may not have economies or communities in the same way that inhabited islands do, and I would not like them to be ruled out on that basis. There is nothing to disagree with in the words that Colin Smyth uses. I just feel that they do not entirely encapsulate the essence or the feeling of where the bill is heading, and I think that there is general agreement on where it needs to go. It will be a difficult task to find a wording to encapsulate that, but I hope that the minister will be able to do so by stage 3.

10:30  

Humza Yousaf

I will speak to a number of amendments on which, where we, as a Government, can be helpful and reflect, we will, because we want to progress the bill in the spirit in which we started, which was to be as collaborative and consensual as possible.

I thank Mr Smyth for articulating the reasoning behind his amendment 28. I also thank other committee members for their very good and insightful reflections. However, I will ask Mr Smyth to withdraw amendment 28. Although I can appreciate the intent that he and other members spoke about, I cannot agree that his amendment is the best way to achieve the aims and outcomes that he desires. As a minister, I have a responsibility—as we all do—to ensure that the law that we make is good law that is capable of being put into effect. That is not a partisan issue or an ideological position: it is our position as lawmakers. Although there is a place for a purpose section in some bills, such a section is used for a specific reason and to achieve specific legal effect. The creation of an overall stand-alone purpose for this bill would be problematic. All the sections of a bill must have legal effect and be able to be interpreted by a court. It is not clear how amendment 28 would be interpreted in each part of the bill. I thought that Stewart Stevenson’s point to that effect was well made.

It is hard to give specific examples, as the whole process is uncertain and we cannot always anticipate the arguments that others might make. However, I give the example of the proposed marine development licensing regulations, which will allow for appeal of a decision in relation to a licence. That is a sensible and necessary provision. Would the appeal process have to take that purpose into account? How might those who have to consider such an appeal on any decision be expected to interpret the purpose in relation to their duty and responsibilities? Would the requirement to build economies tip the balance in favour of permitting a development even when there were other considerations or concerns, such as the impact on the environment? Therefore, although the intention behind such a purpose is laudable, I believe that including in the bill the purpose that Colin Smyth proposes risks unintended and unknown consequences.

Jamie Greene

Before we move to a vote, I want to clarify the minister’s position on that. Minister, are you saying that, at stage 3, you would not consider including a purpose for the bill, or that you would, but you would not use the words that are used in amendment 28? Clarifying that might help us in deciding where we should go with Mr Smyth’s amendment.

Humza Yousaf

I will come back to that, as I am just coming to that very point. I have a problem with putting the purpose on the face of the bill, but I think that we can get to where Mr Smyth and other members have articulated that they want to get to through other means.

As I have said, although the intention behind such a purpose is clearly laudable, for me, overall, amendment 28 would import a set of legal risks that we do not need. Of course, I would welcome Mr Smyth’s view on that in closing.

After the committee’s report and the stage 1 debate, I made it clear that I saw potential for the compromise that the committee wanted to achieve. My amendments 1 and 2, which I will talk about in more detail when we get to the relevant group, provide that the national islands plan will have the specific purpose of setting the objectives and strategy in relation to improving outcomes for island communities. It will include the three underpinning objectives that are listed in amendment 2: sustainable economic development; health and wellbeing; and community empowerment. That approach encapsulates the spirit of amendment 28, which Jamie Greene referred to in making his point, and it will ensure that, through the delivery of the plan, Colin Smyth’s aims are met.

Of course, I am always willing to discuss with Colin Smyth—or, indeed, other committee members—how we can improve the bill. I will be happy to continue this conversation in the lead-up to stage 3. I therefore ask that Colin Smyth withdraws his amendment 28. If he should press it, I ask that members vote against it.

The Convener

Thank you, minister. I ask Colin Smyth to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 28.

Colin Smyth

I agree with John Mason’s point that a purpose clause should be introduced at as early a stage as possible. I had no control over the wording of the draft bill. This is the earliest stage at which I, as a committee member, can introduce such a clause, which is why I have lodged amendment 28.

Mike Rumbles made a very good point when he said that we could agree to the amendment today, and if members are unhappy with the specific wording of the purpose clause, it can be amended at stage 3. I do not fully accept the argument that a carefully worded purpose clause cannot complement the rest of the bill; it certainly would not undermine it—it is all in the wording.

I am aware that members might have a sense of déjà vu. I was not on the committee at the time, but we had a similar debate on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, during which a purpose clause was suggested and members expressed concern about the specific wording with a view to amending it at a later stage. I am tempted to go down that route again and not to press my amendment on the basis that members can come together to agree the wording of a purpose clause that could be inserted through an amendment at stage 3.

I will not press my amendment at this point, but I emphasise that I hope that we can work on the wording for an amendment to be lodged at stage 3.

Amendment 28, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Meaning of “island community”

The Convener

Amendment 10, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 30, 41, 44, 60, 63, 66 to 68, 72, 74 to 77 and 88.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

I welcome the work of the committee on the bill, and I thank the convener and other committee members for taking the time to come up to Orkney to hear directly from those affected in my constituency and that of Tavish Scott. It is much appreciated.

Members will be delighted to hear that, last summer, I managed to visit Auskerry, which is one of the smallest islands and is up in the north-east of my constituency. There, I met Simon Brogan—he and his partner Teresa Probert are the only inhabitants of the island, now that their sons Rory, Hamish and Owen have left home. That leaves just Gairsay as the only inhabited island in Orkney that I have yet to visit. I intend to rectify that some time later this year, weather permitting.

Although the needs of the island communities—some of which are exceptionally fragile—are the focus of many amendments that we will consider during the course of the morning, we must not lose sight of the importance of our uninhabited islands. Orkney has about 80 islands, of which just under 20 are inhabited, but all of which play a crucial role in making Orkney such a unique place, not least in sustaining bird populations of global significance.

Amendment 10 addresses a weakness in the bill by explicitly recognising our uninhabited islands and their importance in the context of our efforts to promote biodiversity and provide species protection. I hope that it reflects the committee’s conclusion at stage 1 that uninhabited islands have a

“cultural, environmental and economic significance”

that deserves to be fully reflected in the bill. I know that the amendments in John Mason’s name have much the same objective, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I also look forward to hearing from the minister and other members.

I move amendment 10.

John Mason

Some of my thinking is in line with what Liam McArthur has just said. The amendments are part of a package, so they all do the same thing. For example, section 3(2), which is on the islands plan, says:

“Scottish Ministers in relation to improving outcomes for island communities”.

My amendment 30 would add to that, so that it would say:

“improving outcomes for islands and island communities”.

That would suggest that islands have a value in themselves, as well in the people who live on them.

The bill is entitled the Islands (Scotland) Bill, but it deals almost exclusively with island communities. I agree that the communities are the number 1 and most important thing for any island. However, we have uninhabited islands—we have heard about examples in Orkney—that are of huge importance with regard to wildlife, the environment and our whole history as a country and a culture. The one that I am most interested in is St Kilda, which is officially uninhabited, although the military and the National Trust for Scotland have a presence there. The story of St Kilda and how the population struggled and was evacuated in 1930 is of huge importance. My key point is that uninhabited islands should be referred to in the bill.

Liam McArthur’s amendment 10 is gentler than mine—I do not know whether it is common for a Government member to take a more extreme line than the Opposition. It says that an island community

“may include a single uninhabited island”,

which I feel is, if not weak, then gentler, and certainly not compulsory. It also talks about an uninhabited island contributing

“to the natural or cultural heritage or economy of an inhabited island”.

I have reservations about that wording, because I think that islands such as St Kilda have a value in themselves and not just in relation to an inhabited island. In addition, some uninhabited islands might have more of a link with the mainland, but they are still important in their own right. This might be a weakness on my part, but I accept that St Kilda would be covered by amendment 10, because its strongest links have traditionally been with the Western Isles and Skye.

I am happy to listen to what other members and the minister have to say. My bottom line is that I would like uninhabited islands to be mentioned somewhere in the bill.

Stewart Stevenson

In 1930, Hirta, which was the only inhabited part of the St Kilda group, was actually part of Inverness-shire rather than the Western Isles—but that is history and does not matter.

Amendment 10, in Liam McArthur’s name, captures something quite important. However, if we agree to it now, we may want to revisit the wording a little bit. I am not concerned about its use of the word “may”; my specific issue is the mention of

“uninhabited islands ... and associated ecosystems”

that

“contribute to the ... economy of an inhabited island”.

If I wished to, I could make the argument that Australia or an uninhabited island off the coast of Australia, by virtue of climate change, contributes

“to the natural or cultural heritage or economy of an inhabited island”

in Scotland. I do not think that we are trying to capture that situation in the legislation.

I am content with the generality of where the amendment is trying to take us, but we might have to look at whether that is what we mean—I do not think it is—and perhaps tweak the amendment at stage 3 if Liam McArthur successfully persuades the committee now or brings it back in modified form. That is a matter for him.

Turning to John Mason’s plethora of amendments, all of which address exactly the same point, I have a very simple issue with what he is trying to do with the words that he uses. I do not know what an “outcome” for an island is—I just do not know what that means. I know what an outcome for people on an island can mean, but an island has no personality in a legal sense, so I just do not know what that means. If we include that wording, there is a danger that we dilute our focus on island communities in section 3(2) et alia. We are legislating to make the lives of the people who live on islands better. That is the core purpose of the bill.

We have just discussed an amendment—although we have not agreed to it—that would insert a section entitled “Purpose of Act” and that properly refers to “island communities”.

John Mason

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson

Yes, he will.

John Mason

Does he accept that, for an uninhabited island, having a community on it would be a positive outcome?

Stewart Stevenson

Yes, but I am not sure that that would be an outcome for the island; it would be an outcome for the community on the island.

I am conflicted on the matter, to be straightforward about it. I just do not feel inclined to support the formulation of Mr Mason’s amendments until I am persuaded that I should do so.

Peter Chapman

I agree with amendment 10, as I think that it is important that uninhabited islands are referred to in the key definitions of the bill.

Sections 1 and 2 refer to islands, inhabited islands and island communities, but there is no reference to uninhabited islands. It is important that there should be such a reference, because, as we have heard, although uninhabited islands have no constituents, they have natural and cultural heritage that needs to be respected. Also, some smaller, uninhabited islands might be neighbours to larger, inhabited islands with fishing interests that require them to be mentioned. Therefore, I support amendment 10.

I also support John Mason’s amendments, which are mainly technical but correct. I support the whole gamut of amendments in the group.

10:45  

Richard Lyle

I support amendment 10.

I ask John Mason not to move his amendments in the group and to discuss the issue with the minister. I do not doubt John Mason’s enthusiasm. As he knows, the current definition of an island is land that is

“surrounded on all sides by the sea”.

His amendments would bring in every piece of rock that is above water at high tide, which would be a large expansion. I suggest that he does not move his amendments and discusses the matter with the minister before stage 3.

I will support Liam McArthur’s amendment 10, but I will not support Mr Mason’s amendments.

John Mason

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Lyle

I have finished. [Laughter.]

John Finnie

I support Liam McArthur’s amendment 10, and I support John Mason’s amendments. We can dance around, and I appreciate that lawyers will forever chew over the words, but there can be outcomes for islands that are uninhabited. For instance, there can be positive environmental outcomes that have wider ramifications. I will support John Mason’s amendments, if he moves them.

Humza Yousaf

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments on uninhabited islands, which I appreciate is an issue of significance for many. The bill’s focus is on improving outcomes for those who live and work on the 90 inhabited islands in the seas around Scotland—the three inland islands are not covered. However, I have always been keen to stress that that does not exclude other islands that are uninhabited and that are important features of Scotland’s natural and cultural heritage. The two that have often been mentioned are St Kilda, which is an obvious example that has been mentioned today, and Ailsa Craig, whose claim to fame relates to curling stones. There is nothing to prevent the national islands plan from making reference to and provision for uninhabited islands.

There are instances in which a group of islands that are in close proximity, with some inhabited and some not, can have an interdependence or, indeed, a linked interest. That acknowledgement means that amendment 10 is worthy of consideration and, for that reason, I am happy to support it. Nevertheless, I have a technical concern about the amendment that relates to how easily understood section 2 would be if amendment 10 was inserted in its current form. Stewart Stevenson also referred to some of the issues with the wording. Section 2 has a particular structure, and we would be adding four lines that do not seem to fit. I am happy to work with the member, and perhaps he can work with our legal team, on the wording. Notwithstanding that, I am more than happy to support what I think is a worthy amendment.

Given my support for amendment 10, there should not really be a need for John Mason’s amendments in the group, so I hope that he will not move them. I can see what the member is trying to do, but I am concerned that, in his enthusiasm, he would potentially be widening the scope of the bill beyond what the Government and Parliament intend. His amendments would expand the duties in relation to island communities to islands more generally. That would mean that, for every island off the coast of Scotland, no matter where it is or how small it is, each relevant authority would need to consider impacts in relation to the island, notwithstanding the fact that there would be no effect on island inhabitants or communities. A cursory glance suggests that we would be talking about around 800 islands, which would be a significant extension from the 90 islands that the bill currently covers. I am not sure that that is what the member intends, but his amendments would potentially lead to a lot of unnecessary work and cost.

John Mason

Will the minister give way?

Humza Yousaf

Of course.

John Mason

I am willing to concede that Mr Lyle and the minister have made a valid point. I was thinking not of, say, the Bass Rock—there is an issue in that respect in that we have not consulted East Lothian Council—but primarily of the six authorities with islands that we have consulted.

Humza Yousaf

Perhaps, given that concession, I should quit while I am ahead. [Laughter.] I will end by noting that other duties, laws and policies relating to, for example, the protection of wildlife, biodiversity, the marine environment and fisheries will apply to uninhabited islands, so their wellbeing is already supported by public bodies in a range of ways. That said, there might be an opportunity to put a reference to uninhabited islands into the national islands plan, and I am happy to work with John Mason in advance of stage 3 to see what can be done in the plan, in particular, to address his concerns.

I am happy to support Liam McArthur’s amendment 10, and I ask John Mason not to move the amendments in his name.

Liam McArthur

Perhaps one man’s gentle is another man’s weak, but it would appear that the gentle approach might be the more appropriate in certain circumstances.

I thank members for contributing to the debate and for their support. I fully recognise that amendment 10, as currently framed, needs some work, but I hope that there will be an opportunity to reflect some of what John Mason was trying to achieve in his amendments. I certainly take on board the point that some islands might be more dependent on the mainland than on the other islands around them. If that can be reflected better in adaptations to the amendment for stage 3, I am more than happy to take that on board.

I am delighted to hear from Stewart Stevenson that, back in the 1930s, Hirta was part of Inverness-shire. Even back then, that would, no doubt, have led to screaming headlines about centralisation gone mad. That said, I am happy to work with the minister and with John Mason on the issue ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

After section 2

The Convener

Amendment 29, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 80, 81, 26 and 27.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 29 seeks to provide a definition of “islands authority” in the list of key definitions, and I lodged it with amendments 80 and 81 on local empowerment and the devolution of powers to clarify who is being referred to. If amendments 80 and 81 are agreed to, the local authorities listed in amendment 29 are those that would have the capacity to request that ministers devolve powers.

Amendment 80 would create a mechanism allowing ministers to devolve specific powers if a case for that could be demonstrated. Under amendment 80, islands authorities could make a request to ministers, arguing their case, and ministers would then have to make a decision and, if they decided to reject the request, would have to explain why. Ministers would be able to issue guidance on how the power should be used. At stage 1, the committee urged the Government to consider such a mechanism, although the Government said at the time that the proposed local democracy bill would be a better vehicle.

The power that is set out in amendment 80 is reasonable and workable. It would empower island communities and allow them to be more proactive in taking actions to address local problems, and it represents the kind of bold action that the bill currently lacks. If the Government is not opposed to it in principle, there is no reason to wait until the introduction of the local democracy bill to bring such a provision forward.

Amendment 81 seeks to create a process for how retrospective impact assessments would work. Islands authorities would be able to submit a request that ministers amend existing primary or secondary legislation where a detrimental effect on island communities could be demonstrated. As with amendment 80, the islands authorities would have to make their case, ministers would then have to respond and, if they rejected the request, they would have to explain the reasons why. That would not create an unreasonable burden, and it certainly would not require all past legislation to be checked, as some have suggested, but it would ensure that any problems in existing legislation that were highlighted could be addressed. The bill is supposed to be about empowering island communities, but local authorities are not being trusted to use that power responsibly.

I appreciate that amendments 26 and 27, in the name of Tavish Scott, are similar to amendment 80, but the difference is that my amendment sets out a mechanism for requesting additional powers. I am happy to listen to the debate on the amendments.

I move amendment 29.

Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (LD)

As Colin Smyth rightly says, amendment 26 is broadly similar to amendment 80, although Colin Smyth commendably puts more detail into the mechanism. Amendment 26 would simply create a mechanism to allow local authorities to request additional powers. It is important to note that it says “requests” rather than “demands”, which is a reasonable approach to an issue on which the islands authorities, in particular, have a reasonable case to make, although I respect the fact that we are dealing with more than just the islands authorities in this context.

The bill makes provision for an application to be made for additional powers in the context of marine licensing, which the minister mentioned earlier, and it is a commendable approach. Orkney Islands Council and others have argued that there should be similar provision for a more general power over a range of competences. The process is broadly similar to the process in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, so there is consistency.

I appreciate the Government’s argument that a governance review is under way—which, if I am correct, involves joint working between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Government. Although I have the greatest respect for COSLA, there have been times in my lifetime when the islands authorities have been somewhat left out of the discussions, and my amendments simply put the authorities that have island responsibilities centre stage in the argument.

Stewart Stevenson

My first comment is about a drafting issue in amendment 29. It is always unhelpful to repeat a list in a bill. The proposed list that is set out in amendment 29 is already present in exactly the same form in the schedule to the bill—it is always better to put lists in schedules as a matter of drafting; actions that require to be taken should form the body of the bill. The bottom line is that the list should occur only once in the bill, not twice. Indeed, the bill already contains powers for the ministers to amend the lists. If amendment 29 is required, it should just point to the list in the schedule. However, that is a drafting point and not a substantive point that need detain us terribly long.

My more substantive point relates to amendment 80 and, to some extent, Tavish Scott’s amendment 26. Tavish Scott said that amendment 26 would allow local authorities to make requests. It is news to me that they are forbidden from making requests—I merely make that point. I do not think that the amendment would create a new power for local authorities in any way, shape or form. I accept that it would create a structure within which such requests could be made, but I do not think that it would create a new power. The same observation can be made about Colin Smyth’s amendment 80.

There are a lot of real difficulties with the detail of amendment 80. Proposed new subsection (1) talks about making requests to ministers

“to promote legislation devolving functions to the authority”.

The obvious point is that devolution is not simply a legislative process. In relation to the Scottish Parliament’s powers, legislation is passed at Westminster that devolves legislative competence to the Scottish Parliament—which is good. We also have secondary legislation that devolves administrative competence. For example, sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 allow the Scottish ministers to approve requests for generation consent for transmission lines, which is a devolved matter. There is also a lower level of devolution to this Parliament, which relates to ministers and the Parliament—by agreement or by letter—agreeing that powers that lie with ministers will be exercised by people elsewhere.

11:00  

I think that the whole issue of devolution is oversimplified in the drafting of Colin Smyth’s amendment, which carries the danger that we might think that it is about only one way of dealing with the matter. I am anxious that we ensure that island communities have the greatest opportunity to maximise their individual and specific opportunities.

Amendment 80 is also quite lax, in a sense, and I do not understand what it means. Proposed new subsection (3) states that an islands authority

“must submit a business case”

that provides

“evidence of community support (including the support of island communities)”.

I am not quite sure how that could be done. Would it be done in the same way as community buyouts have been done—by a ballot of people in particular postal areas? Particularly in the three islands authority areas, would the whole of the islands authority have to demonstrate support or only the community that was directly affected by the devolution that was sought? I am unclear about that, and the amendment is simply not in a form that I can support.

The coup de grâce for amendment 80 is the timescale of “within three months”. Any of us who have been ministers—two of us, Tavish Scott and I, have sat before the committee—will know that that is very ambitious. I admire the ambition, but I must gently advise the committee against it. I have taken five bills through Parliament, and I advise the committee that there is not the faintest chance of such a timescale being achieved. The timescale in Tavish Scott’s amendment is a year, which is a wee bit more satisfactory. Nevertheless, in broad terms, I cannot persuade myself that I should support this set of amendments, however worthy the intention behind them is. I am as anxious as any other committee member—or any island dweller—to make sure that we maximise the opportunities that come from the bill.

John Finnie

We are making law here, and we all want to make very good law, so it is important that we discuss what our intentions are and perhaps refine the wording.

I will get a negative point about amendment 81 out of the way first. Any organisation should review all its policies and principles on an on-going basis. If there is a deficiency—whether it relates to a policy’s application to islands, cities or rural communities—that should be addressed, but I hope that that would not be a huge administrative exercise. When the bill is passed—as, inevitably, it will be—that will perhaps focus the minds of all the people who are listed in the schedule on looking at what, if anything, they can do. The issue of retrospection must be discussed and addressed, but I do not think that that will be a huge process.

I turn to substantive amendment 80, in the name of Colin Smyth, and amendment 26, in the name of Tavish Scott. Taking a different approach does not fragment things; in fact, if we get that approach right, it binds people together. In both amendments 26 and 80, there is an opportunity to look at what we should be planning to do here, which is to devolve as much as we can reasonably devolve. Whether that is functions or powers, it is important that we take the opportunity that the legislation provides to do that. I will support both amendment 26 and amendment 80.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

To start off with Colin Smyth’s amendment 80, although I agree that it is good to have deadlines for these sorts of things because they focus minds, I disagree with Stewart Stevenson. I do not think that you have to be a minister to realise that a requirement to do something “within three months” or “within six months” could be quite constraining. I wonder whether Colin Smyth can explain how he came up with the three and six-month deadlines. Was there a legal reason behind it?

The Convener

I am sure that Colin Smyth will intervene if he feels that he needs to.

Gail Ross

As for amendment 81, we heard from island communities about looking retrospectively at existing legislation. Indeed, when we were in Orkney, people from Orkney and Shetland came up with several examples that we could be looking at right now. I have great sympathy for the proposals in amendment 81, but I do not know whether the bill is the right place to lay them out in such detail. Again, as with amendment 80, there is the issue of the three and six-month deadlines. I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say on that point.

Moving on to Tavish Scott’s amendment 26, I have a couple of points to make about the wording in subsection (3) of the new section that it proposes to introduce, which includes the phrases “must demonstrate reasonable cause” and “must not unreasonably refuse”. Those phrases seem to be quite subjective and I wonder whether the wording is quite right.

With respect to amendment 80 and amendment 26, in all the island communities that we visited and spoke to, the communities did not just want the local authorities to be consulted—they also wanted the islanders themselves to be consulted. I do not see anything in those amendments about consulting at lower than local authority level.

The Convener

Colin Smyth can respond to those comments when he sums up at the end.

Peter Chapman

I agree with amendment 29, in Colin Smyth’s name. It makes pragmatic sense that we understand what the islands authorities are. They are listed in amendment 29 and we can just refer to them as “islands authorities” from there on, so I support that amendment.

Stewart Stevenson

Will the member take an intervention to explain why we need to have a second list of islands authorities, when the list is already present in the schedule to the bill as drafted?

The Convener

When a member asks for an intervention, they should not leap straight into the question, because the member who is speaking might not wish to take the intervention. I am sure that now he has heard the question, Mr Chapman will want to answer it.

Peter Chapman

I take the point that the authorities may already be listed, but it does no harm to clarify who they are again. I support Colin Smyth’s amendment 29 on that basis.

I agree with the sentiment of amendment 80, but we have recognised throughout that this is a community empowerment bill. We want to empower everyone in the island communities and not simply hand over increasing powers to councils with islands or island authorities. I think that Gail Ross was making a similar point, and I agree with that.

We have to recognise that many councils are already stretched thin by budget cuts and I do not know whether they have the resources to manage the devolution of more functions. I am also not sure that that is what the bill sets out to do. I have sympathy with the amendment, but I do not think that I can support it in its current form. The same argument is relevant for amendment 81.

To a large extent, I have similar thoughts on Tavish Scott’s amendment 26. I appreciate the sentiment, but I am not sure that what it proposes is for the bill to decide. I think that imbalances of local government would be caused if local authorities requested different powers. Each island will have its own experience, and therefore we could end up with a bit of a mess.

John Finnie

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Peter Chapman

Yes.

John Finnie

Will the member accept that quite often we hear from members on a number of different party benches, not only from members on his own party’s benches, that one size does not fit all and that it is important to have responses, policies and practices that apply to the different areas across Scotland?

Peter Chapman

I understand John Finnie’s argument. I have some sympathy with amendment 26 but it perhaps goes too far and is a step further than I am able to support. Amendment 27 follows on from that so, for the same reason, I will say no to it.

Mike Rumbles

It is curious that John Finnie just used the phrase “one size does not fit all” because I just wrote that down in response to what Peter Chapman said. I often hear Peter Chapman saying that, so I am surprised to find that he takes the view that he does in this instance.

All the amendments in the group are good but, if I have to make a choice between Colin Smyth’s amendments 80 and 81 and Tavish Scott’s amendment 26, I think that Tavish Scott’s amendment is much better in as much as it does not include the timescales that are in amendments 80 and 81. I listened to what Gail Ross said and I agree that the timescales in Colin Smyth’s amendments are difficult.

The good thing about having stage 2 and stage 3 is that we could choose either set of amendments. However, my preference would be Tavish Scott’s amendment simply because amendment 26 says:

“a relevant local authority must demonstrate reasonable cause for making a request”

and

“the Scottish Ministers must not unreasonably refuse to grant the request.”

Those are legal terms, so people know what they mean. Therefore, they are reasonable and I am sure that a reasonable person—nearly everybody around the table is a reasonable person—would accept that Tavish Scott has made a better stab at the matter than Colin Smyth at the moment. However, we can of course change that at stage 3.

Richard Lyle

Unfortunately, I cannot support Colin Smyth’s amendments 29, 80 and 81 or Tavish Scott’s amendments 26 and 27. I agree with Stewart Stevenson’s earlier point.

With the greatest respect, I say to Peter Chapman that I was a councillor for decades—I will not mention how many years—and I found that the 32 councils in COSLA had 32 different ways of doing things. It is commonly called local democracy.

Humza Yousaf

I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 29 and I ask Tavish Scott not to move his amendments. However, Tavish Scott’s amendments have more appeal to them and I will see whether I can work with him before stage 3 to give effect to what he is trying to achieve.

I will speak first to the Government’s policy. We are committed to the principle of subsidiarity, which means that decisions should be democratically accountable and taken as closely as possible to the people whom they affect. We recently took an important step on the community empowerment journey when the Scottish Government stood with COSLA at the launch of the local governance review last December, which a couple of members referenced.

Tavish Scott said that island communities and authorities do not always feel as though their views are at the forefront. We can reflect on that in relation to the local governance review and the legislative measures that we are introducing. The review seeks to reform the way that Scotland is governed at a local level. Our approach is being shaped by listening carefully to the development of ideas on the issue from, for example, the COSLA-backed commission on strengthening local democracy.

The key element of the review will be for the Scottish Government to invite individual local authorities, community planning partnerships, regional partnerships and other public sector organisations to propose place-specific alternative approaches to governance. One-size-fits-all solutions risk failing to recognise the huge diversity of Scotland. That is why we are interested in new local decision-making arrangements that have been designed with particular places firmly in mind. Extensive engagement with communities will also begin shortly in order to surface the best ideas on how to transform local democracy in Scotland. Again, island communities will have a stake, and a role to play, in that.

As members mentioned, we are committed to introducing a local democracy bill in this session of the Parliament. That will provide a more appropriate legislative option to make new place-specific governance arrangements—including, potentially, those that include, or are specifically for, island authorities. That would be a good example of island proofing in action. Those changes would sit alongside and complement legislative provisions to decentralise more powers to local communities more generally.

In last year’s programme for government, we made a commitment to support island authorities that want to establish a single authority model of delivering local services. Island authorities are already actively working with local partners to develop some concrete proposals. Those will be considered as part of the review process and we look forward to supporting new local governance arrangements that can help our island communities to thrive.

11:15  

The amendments in the group would pre-empt that work and could lead to a missed opportunity for the islands or result in a lack of coherence in relation to new decision-making arrangements that are introduced later. The Government certainly agrees with the spirit of the amendments, but we believe that something as fundamental as a transfer of powers needs to go through a proper and rigorous engagement and consultation process, not just with the local authority but with local communities. That has not happened on the matter in the context of the bill, and it would best be achieved through the local governance review process. I therefore cannot support the amendments.

Tavish Scott’s amendments have more appeal to me. They propose that regulations be used to set out the process, and there might be something in that as long as we are mindful of the local governance review. I am willing to work with the member on the matter before stage 3 and, if he is willing not to move his amendments today but to work with us, we can take that conversation forward.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 81 contains another interesting proposal. It would create a duty on Scottish ministers

“to have regard to requests from islands authorities in respect of improving or mitigating”

existing primary or secondary legislation for island communities. It sets out a process and timescales, and there has been a lot of good conversation among ministers and back benchers about the timescales that are involved.

I understand the thinking behind the amendment, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. As things stand, any island authority can come forward to ministers with any concerns regarding pieces of legislation. They can set out their concerns in the ways that are described in the amendment, and we will respond. In my dealings with the six relevant local authorities since I took up my post, I have proactively encouraged them to do just that and to let me know of any difficulties that they are encountering.

Gail Ross

As I said earlier, we have heard about existing legislation that is possibly having a negative effect on some of the islands. Have any of the island authorities come forward with any requests?

Humza Yousaf

It is a good question. A number of local authorities have said that they are working on concrete plans, although they are not always to do with legislation; sometimes they are to do with guidance. House-building regulations, insulation guidance and a few other issues that members touch on in later amendments have often been raised with me.

The most recent discussion that I had on the matter with local authorities was in Millport at the meeting of the convention of the Highlands and Islands. I met the six authorities and reiterated that offer, and a couple of them indicated that they would come forward. Nobody really agreed with the blanket approach to looking at legislation, but they said that they would come forward, and also that they would look at opportunities for further devolution where they thought that there could be some proactive movement on that. That is in train.

I understand that we are short of time, but I want to reiterate a point that I think members have made. I know from past experience that, sometimes, where one island authority indicates that it has difficulties with the requirements of a particular piece of legislation, other island authorities have no issue with it, so the problem might be more to do with local implementation.

With provisions such as the one in amendment 81, there is a risk that we will create a system that could lead to endless requests to change legislation before it has been properly embedded or indeed implemented. I am satisfied that the powers on island proofing that are already in the bill will give practical effect to what Mr Smyth is trying to achieve with his amendment.

On the timescales, the requirement in amendment 80 that legislation must be introduced within six months is not practical. In order to introduce a bill, we need time to consult—a standard period is three months—and then time to instruct and to draft, and that is assuming that no tricky legal issues come up during the consultation. Working with the proposed timescale would risk the creation of bad and ineffectual legislation or, worse, legislation that could be outwith the Parliament’s competence.

Even if ministers initially support a proposal, there may be constraints on our introducing legislation. There are long-established processes for introducing legislation—including, of course, members’ bills. I fear that, if the amendment was agreed to, the provision could become the default starting position for island authorities if they did not like a particular piece of legislation, rather than their engaging proactively through the means that we already have.

On that basis, I urge Colin Smyth not to move amendment 81. If he moves it, I urge other members not to support it.

Colin Smyth

I believe strongly that amendments 29, 80 and 81 implement clear recommendations from the committee. I do not agree with Stewart Stevenson and the minister that there are existing mechanisms. If the existing mechanisms were satisfactory, we would not be having a discussion about future legislation on local democracy.

A number of valid points have been made on the detail of the amendments. They can be tidied up at stage 3. I refer, for example, to the comments on timescales. One thing that I discovered early on as an MSP is that, when the Government promises to do something, unless there is a clear timescale, you cannot hold your breath. For the Scottish Government, spring can sometimes last about a year and a half. I got commitments to do something in spring last year and I am still—[Interruption.] It can last even longer, as Stewart Stevenson has just told me, speaking from clear experience, I am sure.

I take on board the points that were made about timescales but they can be amended at stage 3 and the Government can put in what it regards as a realistic timescale. Timescales are important for focusing people’s minds.

Peter Chapman made the point that my amendments put burdens on local authorities. It is important to point out that the request for the powers comes from the island authorities themselves. The committee should not tell those authorities what is good for them but should listen to what they want. That is why they have requested that the matter be dealt with as part of the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

I am happy to press amendment 29.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

The Convener

I will suspend the meeting. I ask members to be back promptly in five minutes ready to reconvene.

11:22 Meeting suspended.  

11:28 On resuming—  

Section 3—National islands plan

The Convener

Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 2A, 11 to 16, 31 and 32.

Humza Yousaf

This group is about the content of the national islands plan and there is a large number of amendments in it. If they are all agreed to, section 3 will go from having two subsections to having 15. Therefore, it is fair to say in relation to this group—and others—that we will need to take stock of how the bill ends up after stage 2 consideration and see what needs to be revisited at stage 3 to ensure that the amended bill becomes the most effective legislation that it can be and reflects appropriately our shared ambition for the national islands plan and what it can achieve.

11:30  

I will discuss the other amendments in the group after explaining amendments 1 and 2 in my name.

We addressed some of the issues around the high-level objectives when we discussed the purpose of the bill as we dealt with the first group of amendments. As I set out again today, the national islands plan is a more meaningful place to deliver the committee’s aims for high-level objectives to be incorporated into the bill.

Amendment 1 seeks to adjust the language in section 3 to make the purpose of the plan clear. It amends section 3(2) to state:

“The purpose of preparing a national islands plan is to set out the main objectives and strategy of the Scottish Ministers in relation to improving outcomes for island communities”.

Amendment 2 expands the term “improving outcomes” for island communities to include the three underpinning objectives listed in the amendment: sustainable economic development; health and wellbeing; and community empowerment.

Those high-level objectives encapsulate the evidence that the committee heard during stage 1 and go to the heart of what we are attempting to do to improve the lives of those who live and work on our islands. They would not limit what can be included in the plan, but would help to provide strategic direction, focusing resources and, where necessary, targets for key areas of activity.

I hope that members will support amendments 1 and 2 today, although I recognise that members may have a view on omissions and what might usefully be added to the strategic objectives. I am, of course, willing to engage and work with and listen to any member who considers that section 3 could be further improved before stage 3.

I also recognise that, in your evidence gathering, you heard a wide variety of opinion on how prescriptive we should be in the bill about the areas that the plan should cover. Although I recognise that there are specific issues on which members might want to put more detail in the bill, I urge caution. The committee’s stage 1 report recommended that

“consultation should be undertaken as widely as possible”

and stated that

“When the Committee scrutinises the draft Plan laid before the Parliament, it will wish to be assured that the priority areas featured in the Plan reflect the actual priorities of islanders.”

Therefore, to place specific detailed points in the bill at this stage would be to go against the spirit of the committee’s stage 1 recommendations and would prejudge the views of island communities.

That is not to say that ferries, broadband and the other topics will not appear in the plan—I am in no doubt that they absolutely will—but it would be unfair to island communities and other stakeholders to present a prepopulated plan for them to tinker with around the edges. That is not my aim, and I am certain that that is not the aim of any members around the table. As well as Parliament having a role in setting the parameters and aspirations of the plan, we need to allow appropriate time and external input.

Amendment 2A, in the name of Colin Smyth, seeks to add to the high-level objective list by including

“taking steps to increase the population of islands”.

The goal of achieving population growth and the long-term future sustainability of our island communities are matters on which I think that we would all be in agreement with and I am therefore happy to support amendment 2A.

Before I go on to the other members’ amendments, I highlight that it is the form of amendment as lodged by Colin Smyth where we can perhaps find common ground. It adds to the objectives but does not prescribe what the solution would necessarily be.

On amendment 11 from Tavish Scott, I am aware of the member’s keen interest in the Crown Estate through a variety of conversations that we have had. He will be aware of the on-going dialogue that the Scottish Government and Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) have been having with the island authorities and others on the issue of transferring or delegating the function of managing the Scottish Crown Estate to local authorities.

I understand the reasoning for the member’s amendment, but Scottish ministers have shown their commitment to further reform of the Scottish Crown Estate. We consulted on proposals for reform before the devolution from the UK level was completed on 1 April 2017 and we laid a bill before Parliament in January. The consultation promoted the prospect of a phased approach, with further devolution of assets in the islands being considered under a first phase of reforms.

The member’s amendment seeks to include in the Islands (Scotland) Bill legal requirements relating to the process of planning for delegation of management of the Scottish Crown Estate. Unfortunately, that would lead to a confusing position as the requirements for planning reforms to management would be split across two pieces of legislation—this bill and the Scottish Crown Estate Bill—which could interfere with planning under the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. Amendment 11 is not necessary and, as it stands, presents technical problems.

Section 20 of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill would require a national strategic plan to be prepared and section 21 requires that plan to be reviewed at least every five years. That being the case, the appropriate place for planning the future of the Scottish Crown Estate is in the plans of its managers, and the islands plan should not predetermine the content of the national strategic plan. Requiring the intentions over the next five years to be set out could frustrate the policy foundations of part 2 of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. I am happy to explore with Tavish Scott and Roseanna Cunningham, the lead minister on the Scottish Crown Estate Bill, how we might better address the effect that he is trying to achieve. Therefore, I invite Mr Scott not to move his amendment 11.

On amendment 12, in the name of Liam McArthur, I understand fully Mr McArthur’s desire to see ferries referenced specifically in the plan, given the importance of those services not only to Orkney but to island communities right across Scotland. There is no doubt that ferries and wider transport issues will be covered in detail in the national islands plan, and I give that undertaking. Reliable and efficient transport connections, whether by ferries or planes, are hugely important to our island communities and, in many instances, are regarded as lifeline services. Therefore, without question, I am happy to give a commitment that they will be prominent in any future national islands plan.

On the specific detail of Mr McArthur’s amendment 12, I suspect that he will not be surprised to discover that I do not think that it is necessary, at least in the level of detail that has been put forward. In 2012, the Scottish Government produced the first ever Scottish ferries plan, which covered the period 2013 to 2022 and which was the result of extensive analytical and consultation work. I have signalled recently that we will renew that plan and produce a new one in good time for the expiry of the current plan. Again, that will involve engagement with stakeholders, extensive analytical and consultation work and so on. The new plan will, of course, be island proofed, given the statutory duties in the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

I also want the new ferries plan to sit within the context of the national transport strategy and the strategic transport projects review. However, the timescales of the new ferries plan will not be deliverable ahead of, for example, the first national islands plan.

For all those reasons I am not able to support amendment 12 today but, again, I am happy to work with Mr McArthur to explore how we might better address the effect that he is trying to achieve. I urge him not to move his amendment 12.

On amendment 13, which again is in the name of Liam McArthur, everyone recognises the huge challenge that fuel poverty presents to communities across Scotland. I credit Liam McArthur because he has raised that issue—which is particularly acute in Orkney—on a number of occasions in Parliament both in committee and in the chamber.

The member is aware that the Scottish Government has recently concluded a consultation on a new fuel poverty strategy. Responses are currently being considered and they will help inform the development of the draft strategy, which is to be published in May, as well as inform the warm homes bill, which is due to be introduced to Parliament before the summer.

As members will be aware, fuel poverty is not just an islands issue. Our aim is to ensure that we direct help to anyone who is suffering from the impacts of fuel poverty. We have consulted on rural and island issues and we will seek to island proof the warm homes bill ahead of its introduction. Mr McArthur’s amendment 13 would predetermine how elements of the warm homes bill, the strategy and the delivery priorities are set out before Parliament has had the chance to fully examine them, which would potentially limit its options and hinder the parliamentary scrutiny process.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 13 but, again, I am happy to work with Mr McArthur and to arrange a meeting with the Minister for Local Government and Housing to explore how we ensure that the particular needs of islands communities in relation to fuel poverty are reflected in the legislation. I invite Mr McArthur not to move his amendment 13, on the basis of that guarantee.

I turn to amendment 14, in the name of Tavish Scott. As he knows, the Scottish Government is committed to extending superfast broadband across Scotland by the end of 2021. The procurement is well under way and we have embarked on a competitive dialogue phase with our shortlisted bidders. We expect to have suppliers in place and ready to start delivering in early 2019.

The current digital Scotland superfast broadband programme has transformed broadband access for our islands. Thanks to our investment and that of our partners, new sub-sea fibre cables have been deployed and there is now extensive fibre coverage on Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. The coverage footprint that is to be delivered by the successful R100 bidders and a detailed deployment plan will be confirmed only at the end of the procurement process, at the turn of the year. We are absolutely committed.

The member will acknowledge that the procurement and deliverability of projects of that scale require many months of proper investigation before timescales and targets can be identified. I caution against suggesting that the targets can be brought forward by nine months, as suggested by the member’s amendment 14. If the target can be met sooner, of course that would be welcomed by everybody, including the Government.

I cannot support amendment 14 as drafted but, as I have indicated previously in relation to other amendments in the grouping, I am more than happy to explore with the member an alternative form of wording to ensure that the importance of digital connectivity to our island communities is recognised in the plan. With those reassurances, I urge Mr Scott not to move amendment 14.

Amendment 15, also from Tavish Scott, relates to the continuing discussions between the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the three wholly island councils about the possibility of a future islands deal. I completely understand the intention of the amendment and appreciate that the member has a clear constituency interest.

I reassure all members that the Scottish Government is committed to 100 per cent coverage of Scotland with growth deals. That includes all Scottish islands. In line with the recommendations that the Local Government and Communities Committee made following its inquiry into city region deals, we have asked the UK Government to make a clear commitment to join us in that common purpose and agree a timetable for doing so. Government officials are in dialogue with local government and other colleagues leading the development of an islands deal and I have discussed the matter with island local authorities.

Amendment 15 is not the best way to ensure progress on that. Indeed, in seeking to oblige the UK Government to be part of an islands deal through primary legislation, it might arguably not even be competent. The Scottish Government has already successfully delivered three city region deals with the UK Government and more are in the pipeline. We do not need primary legislation to deliver those deals or to work hard towards our focus on 100 per cent coverage of Scotland with growth deals. Therefore, I ask Tavish Scott to not move amendment 15. However, as always, I am happy to have a discussion about how we can best make progress towards an islands deal.

Amendment 16, in the name of John Finnie, calls on the Scottish ministers to set out in the plan a

“strategy for the maintenance of biosecurity on Scotland’s islands”

to protect their unique natural heritage, cultural heritage and economy. I have discovered in recent days that biosecurity is a broad term that encompasses many aspects of disease and harm prevention. Good biosecurity has the potential to protect wildlife, fragile ecosystems and animal and public health. The Scottish Government is fully supportive of good biosecurity measures. Biosecurity is collaborative and we recognise the essential roles that stakeholders, the wider industry and local councils play in maintaining good biosecurity. That is demonstrated in the biosecurity codes and plans that the Scottish Government has already agreed with a number of sectors.

Although I appreciate amendment 16, as with other amendments in the group, the bill is not the right place for the level of detail that it seeks and the requirements that it places on ministers and other authorities. However, it is an interesting and commendable proposal and I am willing to explore with John Finnie an alternative form of words ahead of stage 3 to ensure that that important issue is recognised within the national islands plan.

On amendment 31 from Jamie Greene, as indicated in our response to the committee’s stage 1 report, we anticipate that the plan will include a series of outcomes, targets and measurable indicators across the full range of Government activities to allow for monitoring and assessment of its progress. That said, I am sure that the member will acknowledge that those will vary and, therefore, it is not always possible to guarantee that every objective covered by the plan—especially high-level objectives—can realistically be measured.

On that basis, the Government cannot support amendment 31. However, if Jamie Greene is willing, following stage 2, I am happy to explore with him an alternative wording that will deliver on the spirit of the amendment and that the Government could support at stage 3. Therefore, I urge him to not move amendment 31.

Amendment 32, which is also from Jamie Greene, is the final amendment in this group and seeks to ensure that the plan lists the public authorities that have duties under the bill. In principle, I have no objections to supporting the amendment but I wonder if it is necessary. It would be helpful to hear the thinking behind the amendment before I agree to accept it.

The schedule that accompanies the bill already lists all relevant authorities that have duties in relation to island communities. At my appearance on 8 November, Jamie Greene had questions about whether the reference to “Scottish Ministers” in the schedule included all Scottish Government agencies. I am told that it is normal for an act to refer to the Scottish ministers, which is the relevant legal person under the Scotland Act 1998 and, therefore, covers all agencies without naming them. That is desirable, as ministerial agencies can be created and change over time.

If that is the reason behind Jamie Greene’s amendment 32, perhaps he would consider not moving it at this stage with a view to exploring with me the best way of achieving the clarity that he seeks.

I move amendment 1.

11:45  

Colin Smyth

Amendment 2A seeks to amend Amendment 2 in the minister’s name to include action on depopulation. That is one of the key challenges facing island communities and it is important that it is included in the plan’s aims. I welcome the minister’s support for that.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the aims of the other amendments, and will listen to what members have to say about them.

Tavish Scott

I appreciate the tone of the minister’s remarks. It is always difficult to issue a great rant in response to a minister who is entirely reasonable when knocking amendments into touch. I will do my best.

I have three points to make on amendments 11, 14 and 15. On the Crown Estate powers, the minister made a fair point at the start of his remarks about the priorities of islanders. I am sure that he would take the observation that the devolution of the sea bed to the islands is unfinished business for the islands and is a priority for islanders. Amendment 11 seeks to address that. The matter was a commitment of the Smith commission, and I am grateful for the cross-party support of members of the commission, including the Deputy First Minister, which resulted in the clear language that is used on this issue. There is a difference between that and the wider aspects relating to the Crown Estate in the national strategic plan, which the minister mentioned, fairly, in his remarks. I would ask the minister to reflect on that in winding up. I take what he said in relation to the Scottish Crown Estate Bill, which his colleague Roseanna Cunningham is taking through Parliament.

On amendment 14, on broadband, I take the minister’s remarks. I entirely support what Government policy on broadband seeks to achieve. I could argue, although perhaps not successfully, that the amendment is entirely complementary to the Government’s work. The broadband roll-out is fundamental to all of the islands, and that is the reason for amendment 14.

On amendment 15, there simply should be an islands deal. I thought that the minister might rather like my suggestion that he should tell the UK Government what to do, in the spirit of what we will be dealing with later this afternoon on the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) Bill. However, I am possibly the least best person to make that argument, given what I will be arguing in a couple of hours’ time.

There is an important role for an islands deal. Amendment 15 was designed to bring that in front of the committee as an important next stage in the development of the islands, and in that sense it is consistent with the bill.

Liam McArthur

I, too, thank the minister for the tone and content of much of what he had to say.

Amendments 12 and 13 follow a similar theme to the amendments of Tavish Scott. There is an opportunity through this bill, specifically the islands plan, to ensure that safeguards and commitments are put in place so that the provision of services to island communities meets certain standards as a minimum and that the needs of island communities are not an afterthought, as so often appears to be the case.

Amendment 12 deals with ferry services, which I am pleased to say that Tavish Scott and I have managed to get the Parliament to speak rather a lot about over the last three or four months. As the minister rightly acknowledged, the 2012 ferries plan sets out minimum standards for levels of service. Sadly, however, those are not always met. The lifeline internal services in Orkney are a case in point.

That cannot continue. The agreement on the budget paves the way for resolving the issue. Before deciding whether to move amendment 12, I seek assurances from the minister that he will instil a degree of urgency to the negotiations with Orkney Islands Council on identifying a longer-term solution, commit to updating Parliament before the summer recess on progress and agree to help towards the funding of the business case on which the longer-term solution will be based.

On amendment 13, colleagues will be aware that Orkney has the dubious honour of being the area with the highest proportion of fuel-poor households anywhere in the country. The Government previously recognised the specific nature of fuel poverty in rural and island areas and the challenges in tackling it through the work of the rural fuel poverty task force. The revised definition of fuel poverty announced by ministers drives a coach and horses through that and risks artificially deflating fuel poverty levels in island and rural communities generally by as much as 20 per cent. All the indications are that, if that definition stands, the warm homes bill will fall far short of the needs of communities that desperately need a tailored approach to be taken.

Those concerns have been raised by those active in fuel poverty measures in Orkney and across the Highlands and Islands more widely. I welcome Humza Yousaf’s recognition not just of my efforts but of those wider efforts, and I also welcome his commitment to work with me and with the housing minister, ahead of stage 3, to ensure that the concerns that have been raised will be properly picked up in the warm homes bill, which will follow once the Islands (Scotland) Bill has been dealt with. On that basis, I am happy not to move amendment 13.

John Finnie

My amendment 16, as has been said, would insert into section 3 a requirement for a reference to biosecurity in the national islands plan. I hear what the minister said about pre-populating the plan, and we have the ever-present debate about what should and should not be in the bill. I will greatly curtail what I was going to say, but invasive species are a major driver of biodiversity loss, and islands are particularly vulnerable. Putting in place the sort of system that I propose would not only protect the natural environment but safeguard economic and agricultural interests. Experience suggests that having that in place would significantly reduce the risk of new incursions. The sort of thing that we are talking about is the eradication of mink in the Western Isles and the positive impact that that had for poultry, the clearing of rats from the Shiant islands, and the invasive species of stoats that are now an issue in Orkney. Techniques are involved in such efforts, and my amendment seeks explicit reference to them in the bill, but I hear what the minister says, and if he is minded to be supportive of that approach I would be happy to discuss those provisions appearing in the plan rather than in the bill.

I would like to touch briefly on some of the other amendments in the group. I will support some of the amendments with tidying-up language, including Mr Smyth’s amendment on island populations. Tavish Scott’s comments about the devolution of the sea bed are very important, and his amendments offer a fundamental opportunity that should not be lost. Ferry services are very important, and the minister acknowledges the huge challenge around fuel poverty, which is also important. I hope that my colleagues will take the approach that I have taken and will not press their amendments. It is important that those issues are highlighted, but I concede that we need to promote them rather than necessarily have them in the bill.

Jamie Greene

In the interests of time, I will shrink many of my comments, as this is a long group. I will deal first with amendments 31 and 32, and with the minister’s comments. The intention behind amendment 31 is to ensure that the objectives that are referred to in the islands plan are measurable. That is important for two reasons. First, a later amendment of mine, amendment 40, is about review of the act and of its success, and if objectives are not measurable in some way it will be difficult for ministers and for us to see whether those objectives have been met or not. I have purposely been light on wording. I have not said how they should be measured, whether there should be targets, or what forms of measurement the minister may choose to assess whether the objectives have been met, but it is important that we have some wording to ensure that the objectives are not just vague concepts, but can be targeted in some ways, as the minister sees fit when he produces his plan. For that reason, I would be minded to move amendment 31 to ensure that there is language around the fact that objectives must be measurable, unless the minister can persuade me otherwise when he sums up.

On amendment 32, I see the point that the minister makes, but let me explain why I have lodged the amendment. When the minister produces his islands plan, it is inevitable that it will be public authorities and bodies that will have to deliver much of the plan. The schedule as it currently stands, with the listed public authorities, relates only to part 3, on the duties in relation to having regard to island communities, and not to part 2, which is about the delivery of the islands plan.

For that reason, I felt that there was a gap. I have specifically stated that the list of public authorities does not need to be in the bill; it just needs to be in the plan. I am not asking the minister to include in the bill all the public authorities under the jurisdiction of ministers; I am asking for them to be listed in the plan, so that when the plan is produced there will be no ambiguity about which authorities have to deliver the objectives that are set in it. I have intentionally left it so that the list will be in the islands plan, which addresses the technical issue that the list in the schedule does not relate to the implementation of the plan. I hope that clarifies why I have lodged amendments 31 and 32, and that the minister will be supportive of the rationale behind them.

We are happy to accept that the minister’s amendments 1 and 2 follow on nicely from the discussion that we had about the purpose of the bill. The amendments have a very helpful purpose, which is to home in on some of the objectives that the plan should cover in relation to sustainable economic development, health and wellbeing, and community empowerment. Those are all very welcome additions at stage 2, although there may be room to tighten the purpose further at stage 3.

I have listened to the arguments from Liam MacArthur and Tavish Scott, who made some valid points. We had a long conversation about their amendments, which raise some valid issues on broadband, ferry access to islands, and fuel poverty. There is no doubt that those things should be included in the plan, but the committee also had a long conversation about the problem of being specific in the bill and creating lists, which are not exhaustive. The question arises as to where to stop; there are half a dozen other areas that I think should be in the plan.

Throughout this process, my worry has been that we should not create lists as such, but I do not want to detract from the amendments and the reasons why they have been discussed today. The issues are important, but I am unable to support the amendments, because I am nervous about being specific in the bill about what should be in the plan.

Mike Rumbles

There is a certain nervousness about the whole process. There is the legislation that we are looking at now and the minister will introduce the plan at a later date. Because of that process, MSPs will not be able to alter the plan that the minister produces, which is a bit like subordinate legislation. The only opportunity that MSPs have to get something included in the plan is to put it in the legislation.

I hear the minister and do not doubt his sincerity when he says that ferries will be prominent in the national islands plan—I am certain that they will be. The minister is an honourable man and my comments are not focused on an individual minister. However, there are two ex-transport ministers in the room, so I am not sure how long an individual will be in post.

Humza Yousaf

Oh!

Mike Rumbles

I put on record that I have a very good relationship with the minister. He does a good job and my comments are not meant to be personal. What I am trying to get across is that the problem is with process. Because the national plan can be reviewed—and is to be reviewed quite regularly—the current minister may well not be the minister who produces the next plan. The problem is that the only opportunity that MSPs have to influence what is in the plan is to put it in the bill.

Stewart Stevenson

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles

I had finished, but—

The Convener

As the member has finished, we should move on. Stewart Stevenson has a chance to say something now, anyway. Before he does, I record the fact that Mike Rumbles will have to leave for a prior engagement with the Presiding Officer, so his substitute, Alex Cole-Hamilton, will be taking over.

12:00  

Stewart Stevenson

I have a brief point to make in response to what Mike Rumbles said. When his political colleague Ross Finnie was a Government minister, it was only when he brought forward the third version of the outdoor access code that came from the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 that we finally consented to agreeing to it. There is, therefore, a process and it does work. However, we will stick that to the wall, because it is not really what I want to talk about.

I am going to talk briefly about two of the amendments, and my observations are designed to be helpful rather than obstructive. First, on Liam McArthur’s amendment 12, I am a bit concerned about any strategy that defines

“the level and standard of ferry services”.

If we had prescribed things in a particular way previously, I wonder whether we would have seen the innovation that Andrew Banks brought with Pentland Ferries operating across the Pentland Firth or, indeed, the innovation that Gordon Ross brought with Western Ferries at Gourock. In addition, in addressing only the needs of island communities, I do not see, as I think that it would be proper to see in a ferries strategy, provision for ferries that might go to Campbeltown, which is definitely not on an island but faces many of the same fundamental accessibility problems that islands face. Consequently, I do not think that the bill is the right place for what amendment 12 seeks.

Examples of possible innovations that might not naturally be included in the islands plan would be the use of hydrofoils—we do not currently have any hydrofoils in Scotland, but they are very successful in Norway as effective, high-speed transport—and hovercraft. Notwithstanding that Maurice Corry told us earlier this month that aviation would be coming to the Scottish Parliament, a hovercraft is actually a form of sea transport that requires a commercial pilot to operate it rather than someone with maritime qualifications.

Secondly, Tavish Scott’s amendment 14 refers to “30 megabits per second”, which is presumably meant to refer to download speed, but issues exist about latency and upload speeds. However, I think that, in a very short space of time, we will consider 30Mbps to be rather unambitious and we will be moving towards 300Mbps and, indeed, gigabit delivery. I do not want to embed the current target too firmly in our minds when, in fact, we should be moving on to much more ambitious ones.

John Mason

I agree with the minister’s argument, which Stewart Stevenson has reiterated to an extent. Given the nature of the bill, I do not think that we want to go into incredible detail. Some of the amendments go into too much detail on issues that will certainly be in the islands plan. For example, this committee has looked considerably at the issue of megabits per second, and its inclusion in the bill would cut across what we have been doing on the issue. John Finnie’s amendment 16 is the exception, in that it does not go into a huge amount of detail but addresses a big, overarching theme. I do not know whether John Finnie is going to move amendment 16, but I would be minded to support it.

Fulton MacGregor

I will pick up on some points. Jamie Greene made the point well that it might not be helpful to go into lists at this stage. I do not know whether Liam McArthur intends not to move amendment 16, but I would be interested in any further discussions with the minister about ferries. I have perhaps been influenced by a constituent coming to a surgery and giving me the book “Who Pays the Ferryman? The Great Scottish Ferries Swindle”. Before anybody asks me questions about it, I have to say that I have not read it in full yet. However, I think that the ferries issue is relevant to the islands plan. I hope that Liam McArthur will not move amendment 16, but I will certainly be interested to see whether at stage 3 something on ferries could be included in the bill or the islands plan.

The amendments by John Finnie and others have a lot of merit, but, given our time constraints, I just want to highlight the ferries issue.

The Convener

Does the minister wish to press or withdraw amendment 1?

Humza Yousaf

I will press amendment 1, which is in my name. If I can, I will be brief.

The contributions on the group of amendments have been insightful. Tavish Scott raised three points. I absolutely take his point about the importance to communities of the Crown estate and the devolution of control of the sea bed, which I hear about when I go to those communities. I have conversations not only with local authorities but with communities on the islands, so I appreciate that the issue is important to them.

I agree with Tavish Scott that broadband access is fundamental to island communities; some might argue that it is even more important to island and rural communities than it is to urban conurbations, but I will not get into that argument.

As I have said, the tricky part in relation to the islands deal is compelling the UK Government to do something through legislation. I am not sure whether such a provision would even be competent but, nonetheless, good conversations are taking place between the Scottish Government and the islands local authorities about a potential islands deal. The draft proposals for that are incredibly ambitious and I have no doubt that the conversations will continue. Wherever I and my colleagues can influence the UK Government to be involved in those discussions, we will be happy to provide that weight.

I undertake to give Liam McArthur, before the summer recess, the update that he asked for on the long-term ferries solution. I do not know how much progress will have been made by then, but we will try to make progress and put our shoulder to the wheel. I give him the assurances that he sought. The issue is more acute on Orkney than on Shetland, given the age of some of the vessels for the internal services. We will try to work towards progress and give him the assurances that he looked for.

Mike Rumbles made an important point about future proofing, although he seemed to have insight into my future political career that I do not have. That point is precisely why we should not put such issues in the bill. As we all know, changing primary legislation is not an easy task, so dealing with the issue through the national islands plan is the most appropriate approach.

Liam McArthur made a point about fuel poverty. I will attempt to arrange a meeting with him, Kevin Stewart and me before stage 3, as Liam McArthur requested, which would be sensible.

John Finnie’s point about invasive species was well made, and I have had conversations with local authorities about them. However, I hope that he sees my point that the bill is probably not the best place to deal with that. Perhaps we can have a conversation before stage 3 about how we can incorporate such matters into the national islands plan, so that he is reassured that the issue will be given the prominence that is due to it.

I urge those colleagues not to move their amendments but to work with me before stage 3 to see whether I can give them the reassurances that they require.

I am happy to accept Jamie Greene’s amendment 32, which requires the plan to list public authorities. I do not think that such a list is necessary and I am not convinced that it will have the effect that he wishes it to have, but I do not have too much concern about the amendment.

Amendment 31 is unnecessary. I believe absolutely in measuring, monitoring and assessing outcomes, and I am happy to work with Jamie Greene before stage 3 on how we can do that, but some high-level objectives are difficult to measure empirically, so I ask Jamie Greene not to move the amendment and to work with me before stage 3.

That was as quick as I could go, convener.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 30 not moved.

The Convener

Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? [Interruption.] I am sorry; I have got the procedure wrong in my rush to move forward. I thank Mr Stevenson; it is always nice to be corrected by him.

Amendment 2 moved—[Humza Yousaf].

Amendment 2A moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 2, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 11 to 16 not moved.

Amendment 31 not moved.

Amendment 32 moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Preparation and scrutiny of plan

The Convener

Amendment 17, in the name of Gail Ross, is grouped with the amendments shown in the groupings paper.

Gail Ross

During the committee’s evidence sessions, six local authorities with island interests made a strong case to be included as statutory consultees for the preparation of the national islands plan. My amendment is straightforward: in line with the committee’s recommendation, it requires Scottish ministers to consult the six local authorities that are listed in the schedule of the bill in the preparation of the national islands plan.

At a meeting on 8 March, Highland Council, which covers my constituency, showed support for, among other things, the inclusion of the six local authorities with island interests as statutory consultees to the plan. If other local authorities were to be added to the schedule in future, amendment 17 would also mean that they would have to be consulted as well. The amendment therefore allows for future proofing in a way that Peter Chapman’s amendment 33 does not.

I also believe that my amendment works better than amendments 34 and 35 in the name of Jamie Greene, which seem to include all authorities rather than just the island ones. I will wait to hear what Jamie Greene has to say on the rationale for that approach.

As a consequence of amendment 17, I have also lodged amendment 18, a technical amendment that adjusts section 4(1)(a)(i) to make it clear that persons other than those from local authorities that represent island communities must also be consulted.

I will be supporting amendment 19, in the name of John Mason, which adds “island communities” to those who should be consulted on the national islands plan. I will also support John Mason’s amendment 36, which seeks to include “natural heritage” in the matters that ministers must have regard to in preparing the plan. I feel that that is a welcome addition.

I also support amendment 3, in the name of the minister, which seeks to ensure that the linguistic heritage of our island communities is considered in the plan.

I am generally supportive of Jamie Greene’s amendment 40, which concerns the provision of information in the annual report on the actions that ministers are taking on the outcomes. I will listen to what Mr Greene has to say about his other amendments, but at the moment I do not think that they are necessary.

Finally, I will support amendment 4, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, which would require ministers to produce the annual report within three months of the end of the reporting year. It is a reasonable proposal.

I move amendment 17.

12:15  

Peter Chapman

Much of what I had to say has already been said. My amendment sets out another list; I suspect that Stewart Stevenson will not be overly enthralled by that, because he did not like the list the last time around. However, it provides clarity. After all, it is important that the six island authorities are statutory consultees, and that is what I am trying to achieve with amendment 33.

I will leave Jamie Greene to speak to his amendments, which I will support. I can also support John Mason’s amendment 19 and the minister’s amendment 3. However, I cannot support amendment 37 in the name of John Mason, although I cannot for the life of me remember why. [Laughter.]

Richard Lyle

He has lost the will to live.

Peter Chapman

I have been helped out by the member next to me, and he is not even a member of the committee.

I would question the use of the phrase “including inhabited islands”. Should it not be “uninhabited islands”, as the bill generally refers to inhabited islands? I am not sure whether I have made things any clearer, so I will move on.

Amendment 38, in the name of Colin Smyth, is similar to John Mason’s amendment 37, so we are not happy with that one either. I can support Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 4.

The Convener

I am pleased to say, Mr Chapman, that John Mason actually understood your question, so I am sure that he will address that point.

Jamie Greene

I support amendment 33 in the name of my colleague Peter Chapman. It is important to list the island authorities as statutory consultees.

As for my amendments, I take Gail Ross’s point about amendments 34 and 35, the purpose of which is to include local authorities as part of the consultation process. There is a variety of ways of wording the bill to achieve that, as is reflected in the conflicting amendments on the issue, but there is a general sense among members that not just local authorities but island communities should be part of the process. Indeed, that reflects the feedback we received on our visits to islands.

Gail Ross

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene

Yes.

Gail Ross

No one here would argue with the inclusion of island communities, but amendments 34 and 35 refer to “local authorities”, which would encompass all local authorities, not just island local authorities or local authorities with islands.

Jamie Greene

I take the point. The wording could have been tighter, but we were up against the wire with amendment deadlines. There is a purpose to the amendments, though, and I am happy to reflect on how we can strengthen the wording to include the relevant island authorities.

We support amendment 19. It is important to point out that it is not just local authorities that are the voices of islands; the voices of members of island communities must be heard, too. For that reason, I think that amendment 19 is an excellent addition to the bill.

Amendment 39 is a technical, tidying-up amendment, which says:

“The plan must be laid before the Scottish Parliament on a day on which the Parliament is sitting.”

The bill does not state that explicitly at the moment. It is important that the plan is not published the day after the summer recess begins—not that the minister would ever dream of doing such a thing, of course. Ensuring that the plan is delivered to Parliament on a sitting day gives the opportunity for urgent questions to be raised in the chamber or for scrutinising the plan as we see fit. The amendment is not being prescriptive about how we should scrutinise the plan, but it ensures that we get the plan on a day when Parliament can discuss it appropriately.

I welcome Gail Ross’s comments on amendment 40. The bill says only that the report will talk about the extent to which outcomes have improved since the previous reporting year. That is wonderful, and I hope that outcomes do improve, but the Government should also be accountable by laying before Parliament the details of where outcomes have not improved. That is what is required under amendment 40. I do not imagine that Government would ever want to avoid publishing negative news about or regression in any of its outcomes, but I hope that the amendment strengthens the minister’s ability to be forthcoming and frank about objectives that have not been met or which have not improved since the previous year. That is the rationale behind amendment 40, and I hope that it has the committee’s support.

On amendment 42, which relates to the reference on page 3 of the bill to

“any other matters which the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”,

its inserting into the bill the phrase

“any financial implications arising as a result of this Act”

is important. We might find that, after a year, there has been a significant effect on the ability of local and public authorities to deliver the objectives of the plan financially or the mitigation requirements to help local authorities make decisions with due regard to island communities, and it is important that the minister is honest with Parliament about the potential financial consequences. That is not explicit in the bill as drafted.

John Mason

I will focus my attention on amendments 19, 36 and 37 in my name.

I am picking up positive vibes about amendment 19. The reason for lodging it came out of the committee report. Under section 4(1)(a)(ii), ministers are required to consult

“such persons as they consider likely to be affected by the proposals contained in the plan”.

The general feeling was that that was a bit too vague, and amendment 19 is intended to beef up the requirement by adding the phrase

“including members of island communities and other persons”.

I hope that that will not be contentious.

Amendment 36 adds the phrase “natural heritage” to section 4(1)(b), which talks about having

“regard to the distinctive geographical and cultural characteristics”

of each of the islands. By adding “natural heritage” after the word “geographical”, we will ensure that Scottish ministers have regard to everything to do with that matter, too. The term “natural heritage” is defined in statute under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 as

“the flora and fauna of Scotland, its geological and physiographical features, its natural beauty and amenity”.

The future plan should cover all that as well as aspects that have already been mentioned such as invasive non-native species. We also know about the links between natural heritage and the economy; for example, the sea eagles on Mull are thought to bring in £5 million per year to the local economy. As for Colin Smyth’s amendment 38, I know that it is very similar to mine. We do not need both, but we certainly need one of them.

Amendment 37 deals with the public interest in consultations. At present, the bill refers to Scottish ministers considering

“the interests of island communities”

and

“such persons as they consider likely to be affected”,

and then having

“regard to the ... characteristics of each of the areas inhabited by island communities.”

All of that is absolutely correct, but there is an issue of principle here, and we should add something specific about the public interest to make it clear that it is not just any public interest and to ensure that the term itself is not left totally vague. As a result, amendment 37 seeks to add to the provision the following wording:

“have regard to the public interest in the environmental, economic and social characteristics of islands (including inhabited islands)”.

This brings me to Mr Chapman’s point about whether the amendment should refer to inhabited and uninhabited islands. Given the assumption in the bill that most of its provisions relate to inhabited islands, I am using the term “islands” to include all islands, specifically inhabited islands. I accept, though, that the amendment could be worded differently.

Islands are important not just to island communities but to us as a nation. I am a city dweller and I like living in the city, but I love our islands and I love visiting them. Amendment 37 would bring in a wider public interest that is specifically about environmental, economic and social characteristics, and that would help to emphasise that we as a nation—not just the people who live on the islands—have a commitment to them.

Humza Yousaf

I will speak to amendment 3 first and then comment on the other amendments in the group.

In its stage 1 report, the committee called on the Scottish Government to consider an extension to the provisions of the bill so that, in addition to its having regard to the distinctive geographical and cultural characteristics of the islands, it would also have regard to their linguistic heritage.

We recognise the importance of the linguistic heritage of Scotland’s island communities. The bill already uses the expression “cultural characteristics”, which covers a range of matters including the Gaelic cultural traditions of the Hebrides and the Scandinavian heritage of Orkney and Shetland. However, I accept the committee’s suggestion that some clarification might be helpful. To that end, I have lodged amendment 3 to make it clear that, in preparing the national islands plan, the Scottish ministers must have regard to linguistic heritage.

I am happy to support amendments 17 and 18 in the name of Gail Ross. Through the ministerial islands strategic group, I have developed a strong and constructive partnership with the six island local authorities and the local authorities with islands. As I stated in my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, the six local authorities assisted us with the development of the bill ahead of its introduction. I always envisaged their continuing to play an active role in helping us deliver the provisions in the bill and guidance through their participation in the islands strategic group. Amendments 17 and 18 will ensure that all six local authorities are listed as statutory consultees for the national islands plan, and I welcome that.

Given the support for Gail Ross’s amendments 17 and 18, I, like others, see no need for amendment 33 in the name of Peter Chapman or amendments 34 and 35 in the name of Jamie Greene. Amendment 33 is not future proofed in the same way that amendments 17 and 18 are, and I ask Peter Chapman not to move it.

Amendments 34 and 35 in the name of Jamie Greene seek to provide that consultation will take place with all local authorities that represent island communities or which are affected by a proposal. Although it is useful to identify the six islands authorities in the schedule, we do not require to add in all the local authorities. If the member has concerns about other local authorities, I would note that they are already covered under section 4(1)(a), as, under the normal rules of statutory interpretation, a local authority is a type of legal “person”. I therefore ask Mr Greene not to move amendments 34 and 35.

I am happy to support amendment 19 in the name of John Mason. The amendment highlights simply and effectively that island communities must be consulted in the preparation of the plan. I am also happy to support Mr Mason’s amendment 36. Some of our island landscapes and habitats are truly world class, and it is therefore right that the national islands plan has regard to our islands’ natural heritage.

I am intrigued by Mr Mason’s amendment 37, and I listened carefully to what he had to say about it, but I am still not entirely convinced that it works as intended, not least because it includes uninhabited islands, which is an issue that we discussed in an earlier group. That said, I understand what he is trying to do. As a result, in an attempt to be helpful, I ask him not to move amendment 37 today but to work with me and my officials to see what can be done to give effect to his aim. If he is satisfied with that work, we will lodge another amendment; if he is not, he can lodge his amendment again at stage 3. I make that offer, because I am not entirely clear about his intention and I fear that amendment 37 and its particular reference to “public interest” might have unintended consequences.

12:30  

Amendment 38 in the name of Colin Smyth is not required if we support amendment 36 in the name of John Mason. As they essentially do the same thing, I ask members to support amendment 36 and ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 38.

Amendment 39 in the name of Jamie Greene requires the final national islands plan to be laid before the Scottish Parliament

“on a day on which the Parliament is sitting”—

which, in effect, means not during recess. I assume that the member is worried that we will attempt to sneak out the plan during the recess when members are not looking.

Unfortunately, amendment 39 could mean our having to delay laying the plan until Parliament comes back from whatever recess got in the way. Indeed, under section 4(4), we would still have an obligation to publish the plan

“As soon as reasonably practicable”.

Whenever we lay and publish the final plan, it will be there for members to consider and debate as they wish. Section 4 builds in a 40-day parliamentary period after the draft proposed plan is laid and before the final plan is made. After that, I would not want to delay the final plan’s laying and publication any longer.

Jamie Greene

Will the minister take an intervention?

Humza Yousaf

I will finish this point and then take the intervention.

I completely understand where Jamie Greene is coming from. We have talked a lot about future proofing; as reasonable as a particular minister or Government might be at the time, we need to future proof the provision, and I am therefore more than happy to discuss the matter with the Minister for Parliamentary Business. It would be for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to have a conversation about an appropriate debate on the national islands plan when the Parliament is sitting. I also point out that the collaborative approach that we seek to take with the plan will mean that its contents will hold no surprises for members.

I am now happy to take Jamie Greene’s intervention.

Jamie Greene

Theoretically, as the bill stands, the minister could lay the plan at the beginning of, say, the summer recess, in which case Parliament would not be able to address it fully until it came back from recess. Will he clarify the timeline for the draft plan versus the final plan? By saying that the plan must at least be submitted on a parliamentary sitting day, I am trying to ensure that it is formally presented to Parliament while it is sitting. That would, for example, give MSPs the summer recess to review it. Could a draft be issued at that point? Would the 40-day deadline occur during the recess? I am a bit confused about the timeline as drafted.

Humza Yousaf

I can confirm that the 40-day period starts with the day on which the plan is laid before the Scottish Parliament. My understanding is that it is 40 sitting days, but I am happy to work with Jamie Greene to provide further clarification. Indeed, I can clarify it in writing to the committee. However, members of the Opposition, if no one else, would rightly be the first to pull us up if we attempted to sneak out something as important and as high up our agenda as the national islands plan without its getting the appropriate scrutiny.

As I have said, I do not expect there to be any surprises in the plan, given that we have discussed and know some of the main issues that will be in it and that we hear regularly from the island communities on those issues. Theoretically speaking, a draft could be laid just before summer recess and not get any scrutiny until we came back. However, I am happy to work with Jamie Greene ahead of stage 3 to try to prevent that from being the case and to devise a timetable that takes into account parliamentary recesses and appropriate levels of scrutiny.

Amendment 40 in the name of Jamie Greene asks Scottish ministers to set out the steps that they will take where an outcome identified in the plan has not improved. I am not sure whether it works with his amendment 31, which refers to the objectives—and not outcomes—being measurable; however, I understand what Mr Greene is seeking to achieve here, and it has some merit. After all, where an outcome or objective is not being met, the Scottish ministers should consider what they should do to seek to change that situation. I ask Mr Greene not to move amendment 40 at this stage on the basis that I will ask officials to consider the matter more fully and liaise with him before stage 3 to ensure that, if it is considered appropriate, a suitably worded amendment in the same vein can be drafted.

As for amendment 42, which is also in the name of Jamie Greene, I think that it is far too broad in asking the Scottish ministers to report on

“any financial implications arising as a result of this Act”.

As the legislation would apply to a very broad range of organisations, I do not think that such a requirement for information would be realistic.

Finally, amendment 4, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, seeks to require the annual report to be laid within three months after the end of the reporting year. As I am conscious of the Parliament’s focus on the desirability of transparency, clarity and accountability, I am happy to support the amendment. The Scottish Government always expected the annual report on the plan’s progress to be published and laid before Parliament in a timely fashion following the end of the reporting year.

I will conclude there, convener.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 38 is very similar to John Mason’s amendment 36 in that it seeks to add the phrase “natural heritage” to the bill. I feel passionately about the issue—indeed, I raised it during the stage 1 debate—but if amendment 36 is agreed to, I will not move my own amendment.

Fulton MacGregor

I will speak to amendment 4 as briefly as I can.

Section 5 places a duty on ministers to prepare and publish an annual progress report that provides information on the improvement of outcomes in island communities that has occurred over the previous year as well as information on how ministers have complied with the island-proofing duty in section 7. The bill currently provides that the report must be produced

“As soon as reasonably practicable”,

but to assist with tracking progress on the report, the committee recommended a time limit for its publication by Scottish ministers.

Amendment 4 ensures that the Scottish ministers must publish and lay before Parliament the annual report within three months after the end of the reporting year. I believe that three months is an appropriate length of time for the ministers to produce the information. Anything shorter would come with the risk of the information not being available, while anything longer would mean that the information could be out of date.

I support amendments 17 and 18 in the name of Gail Ross. Like the minister, I, too, support John Mason’s amendment 36 on natural heritage.

Like other members, I am not sure of the need for amendments 39 and 42 in the name of Jamie Greene. However, I see the benefits in his amendment 40, although I note the minister’s call for further work to be done on it before stage 3.

Richard Lyle

Because of the time factor, I will be brief. Amendments 34 and 35 by Jamie Greene have been slightly badly drafted, and with the greatest respect, I ask him not to move them. There is no island in my constituency, unless it is one in the middle of a lake.

As for the other amendments in the group, I take on board the points that the minister made when he asked members to reflect on them.

Stewart Stevenson

I want to make a brief comment on amendment 39 in the name of Jamie Greene. What it proposes is in conflict with rule 14.1.3 of the Parliament’s standing orders, which states:

“A report or other document may be laid before the Parliament at any time when the office of the Clerk is open.”

In order to agree to the amendment, we would have to look at what the standing orders say, and I do not know how we would change standing orders to conform to it. That is a procedural point.

In any case, I think that the best day for laying this particular material is the last day before the summer recess. That would allow us all to go and consult our constituents on the plan’s contents over the recess—a three-month period—before the period of 40 parliamentary sitting days started to operate. In short, and contrary to the argument that has been put forward, the best day to lay the plan is the last day before recess starts—or the day after, for that matter.

John Finnie

I would like to speak briefly on amendment 3, in the name of the minister. I am grateful that it reflects the committee’s stage 1 report recommendation. I have a deep interest in our linguistic heritage, and I am particularly grateful that the minister mentioned the Norse heritage of the north isles.

Clearly the islands plan must have regard to the one plan that is in place regarding our linguistic heritage—the national Gaelic language plan. In that respect, I have had various representations made to me, and the minister might be in a position to allay some concerns. Can he confirm, for instance, that Bòrd na Gàidhlig will be consulted on the preparation of the islands plan and play some role in the subsequent assessment of it?

Humza Yousaf

Yes.

John Finnie

Thank you very much indeed. Mòran taing.

Gail Ross

We have had a really thorough discussion of all the amendments and there are many points to consider. On amendment 39, in the name of Jamie Greene, we should note that, if the plan were to be laid on the last day before recess, that would still be a sitting day of the Parliament. That is an interesting point.

On my own amendments, I feel that amendment 17, in my name, is stronger than amendment 33, in the name of Peter Chapman. Because it provides for the list of statutory local authorities to be set out in the schedule, it allows for future proofing, as the minister has acknowledged. I therefore ask Peter Chapman not to move amendment 33, but I intend to press mine.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Amendment 33 not moved.

Amendment 18 moved—[Gail Ross]—and agreed to.

Amendment 34 not moved.

Amendment 19 moved—[John Mason]—and agreed to.

Amendment 35 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[John Mason]—and agreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Amendment 37 moved—[John Mason].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 37 disagreed to.

Amendments 38 and 39 not moved.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5—Report on plan

Amendment 40 moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.

Amendment 41 not moved.

Amendment 42 moved—[Jamie Greene].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 42 disagreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Fulton MacGregor]—and agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

The Convener

I am afraid that that is as far as we are able to go today, but we will pick up next week where we have left off today. Amendments to the remaining sections of the bill can still be lodged, and the deadline for doing so is 12 noon tomorrow.

That concludes today’s business, and I close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 12:46.  

The Convener

Agenda item 2 is day 2 of our stage 2 consideration of the Islands (Scotland) Bill. I welcome back Humza Yousaf, the Minister for Transport and the Islands, and officials from the Scottish Government.

Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced; the second marshalled list of amendments, which was published on Thursday; and the second groupings paper, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. The aim is to complete stage 2 today.

I remind committee members that, when there is a vote on an amendment, they should indicate clearly which way they are voting by raising their hands. It just makes our lives easier in recording the vote.

Section 7—Duty to have regard to island communities

The Convener

Amendment 43, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 45, 73, 90 and 21 to 23.

Jamie Greene

First of all, I will give the committee some background about my amendments 43 and 45. Amendment 43 simply seeks to add the word “due” to the phrase “have regard to”. Although it might seem like a very minor addition, the phrase “have due regard to” is often used in contracts to give additional clarity.

There has been a lot of discussion about what the phrase “have regard to” actually means, and I am keen to hear what the minister thinks it means in the context of the bill. With amendment 43, I am seeking to change the phrase to “have due regard to” in order to strengthen things slightly by emphasising how strong that regard should be and the range of issues that one must have regard to. It is, as I have said, a very minor addition.

Amendment 45 seeks to add the phrase

“insofar as it is capable”

to section 7(1). The reason for that is that a duty to have due regard to all policies and services, and all decisions that are made, is a wide-ranging one. In my view, there might be situations in which a body or authority simply does not have the capability to have regard to everything. The use of the phrase

“insofar as it is capable”

will make it clearer that there is no expectation on a body to have regard to islands in cases in which, perhaps for reasons relating to resources, it simply cannot. In my summing up, I might provide an example but, in the interests of brevity, I will leave it at that for now. I am keen to hear what other members think about the proposed additional language.

Amendment 73 seeks to insert in section 9 the phrase:

“For the purposes of this section, the relevant public authority may determine what constitutes compliance.”

It is more of a probing amendment. It raises the question of who decides whether there has or has not been compliance in relation to the duties under the act. Will compliance be a clear-cut thing? Will there be a list of metrics, actions, deeds, words that have to be used or steps that have to be taken? Will that be set out in guidance rather than legislation? I am trying to probe whether it is adequate for each local authority to feel that it has taken adequate steps to comply with the legislation or whether that will be independently monitored somehow, with the remit for that lying with some as yet unknown third party. At the moment, it is unclear who will decide what compliance is and how that will manifest itself. The wording that I have suggested would ensure that each public authority that is listed in the schedule to the bill could feel confident that it had taken the necessary steps to comply with the legislation.

It remains to be seen whether amendment 73 is suitable for that purpose in the context of the bill, but it is important to note that we have not addressed how compliance will be monitored and measured. Furthermore, the repercussions for non-compliance are a bit unclear.

Gail Ross’s amendment 21 and Tavish Scott’s amendment 23 seek to achieve the same thing through the insertion of additional wording. Amendment 21 seeks to add the words:

“each local authority listed in the schedule”.

I am not sure whether there are any issues of pre-emption. Given that both amendments seek to do the same thing, perhaps the members who lodged them can clarify which of them we should support.

I move amendment 43.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 90, in my name, would require relevant authorities to review and revise strategies and services as they saw fit in order to have regard to island communities. That is a sensible measure and it is in line with the rest of this part of the bill. As the bill stands, those bodies will be required to have regard to island communities in the future, but there is no provision in relation to existing strategies and policies. Clarification is required to ensure that any existing problems are addressed so that the section 7 duty can be complied with.

I have slight concerns about amendment 45, which I think might offer authorities a potential way out of fulfilling their duties. For example, would financial pressures render a relevant authority incapable? Likewise, I am concerned that amendment 73 could create a loophole, as it seems to enable authorities to determine whether they are compliant.

I support amendment 21, which concerns a recommendation that the committee made. Amendment 22 is also fine, as it tidies up the language.

10:00  

Gail Ross

I will speak first to amendments 21 and 22, in my name. As we said when we debated amendments 17 and 18 last week, it is clear that the six local authorities that have island interests have a strong desire to be statutory consultees for the consultation on the guidance that must be prepared in relation to the island-proofing duty in section 7.

In line with those views and the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report, amendment 21 would require the Scottish ministers to consult the six local authorities that are listed in the schedule. Like the amendments that we considered last week, amendment 21 future proofs the consultation requirement in case new local authorities are added to the schedule in future.

As a consequence of amendment 21, amendment 22 is a technical amendment that adjusts section 10(2)(b) to make it clear that persons other than local authorities who represent the interests of island communities must be consulted.

When I first read the amendments in Jamie Greene’s name, I was unsure about the effect that they would have. That was particularly the case for amendment 45, because the phrase

“insofar as it is capable”

might have the effect of limiting and maybe even watering down the island-proofing duty. I look forward to hearing the example that Jamie Greene said that he would give when he sums up the debate.

The effect of amendment 73 would seem to be to make the relevant authority the sole authority that would determine whether something was compliant. Will Jamie Greene explain how his proposed approach would work alongside the guidance?

Amendment 23, in the name of Tavish Scott, would require the Parliament to approve the island-proofing guidance. I understand that that might be helpful and I accept that there are good intentions behind the amendment, but I am concerned that the approach might restrict the ability of island communities to input when guidance was being developed. I will wait to hear what Tavish Scott says about that.

I say to Jamie Greene that amendment 21 would not have the same effect as amendment 23. Amendment 21 is about consulting local authorities as we develop the guidance, whereas, as far as I can see, the effect of amendment 23 would be that every change to the guidance would require a parliamentary vote, which I think would limit community involvement.

Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Amendment 23 would require the Scottish ministers to lay before the Parliament for its approval guidance on the section 7 duty.

I reflected on the debate that the committee had last week about the exhaustive—or otherwise—nature of the islands plan and matters therein, and I absolutely take the committee’s point that there is a debate to be had about whether to include a list. The example of broadband works both ways. Should there be a right to broadband coverage of a certain level in the islands? Absolutely, but would a provision on coverage of a certain level be future proofed, given that technology moves on? There is certainly a debate to be had, and I entirely take the committee’s views on that.

It follows that if so much is to be in guidance—and a theme of the bill appears to be that much will be done by way of guidance—it is appropriate that the Parliament should have an opportunity to see and approve the guidance.

I entirely take Gail Ross’s point. Amendment 23 is not intended in any way to restrict the ability of islands, or of any group, organisation, business or local authority, to take a view on the guidance and to get involved with Government in ensuring that the guidance is correct and appropriate for the islands. Such restriction would be entirely counterproductive.

Nevertheless, the Parliament should have a role in approving the guidance. The Parliament sees an awful lot of guidance, and given how little detail is in the bill and how much will come through in guidance, it is appropriate that we test the arguments as to how the Parliament oversees the process and carries out its proper role in scrutinising ministerial activity. I commend amendment 23 to the committee.

Stewart Stevenson

I support what Gail Ross and Colin Smyth said about amendments 45 and 73.

On amendment 43, we must consider how the insertion of the word “due” qualifies the word “regard”. I take it as restricting rather than expanding the regard that must be had—only “due regard” must be had. I cannot see an argument for adding “due”.

Mike Rumbles

With due respect to Jamie Greene, his amendments would not achieve what he thinks they would. The bill will be weakened if we agree to them, so I urge him not to press amendment 43 and not to move his other amendments.

Tavish Scott is absolutely right with his amendment 23; Parliament should approve the guidance by resolution, because a lot is going into the guidance. The bill is an enabling bill, and we had a discussion about what it should include. I cannot see anything wrong with the minister producing the guidance and then putting it before Parliament so that we can have our say on it. We can only say yes or no; it is not as though we will be interfering with the guidance, as it were. That is a proper role for Parliament, so amendment 23 is absolutely essential. I also support the other amendments in the group.

John Finnie

I will restrict my comment to Tavish Scott’s amendment 23. As Mike Rumbles said, the bill is a piece of enabling legislation and the amendment would be complementary to it. Importantly, it would give Parliament joint ownership, which can only be positive. Therefore, I support Tavish Scott’s amendment 23.

Gail Ross

I have a question about amendment 23. Would Parliament approve the guidance when it is complete, or would it have to approve every small change as the guidance develops? It will be a flexible rather than a fixed document. How many times does the member expect it to come back to Parliament?

The Convener

Is Tavish Scott asking to make an intervention?

Tavish Scott

I apologise, convener. I am not sure what the correct protocol is in this committee or whether it involves waving one’s hands around.

The answer to Gail Ross’s question is that it would be logical for the guidance to come to Parliament once. It cannot be sensible for this committee or the Parliament to be bogged down in considering every change, as she rightly points out. Therefore, my contention is that approval of the guidance would happen at the stage when the minister wished it to happen.

The Convener

Would the minister like to say a few words?

Humza Yousaf

Thank you. I have almost a page and a half of rebuttal of Jamie Greene’s amendment 43, but I do not think that I could put it as succinctly as Stewart Stevenson managed to, which is a first. I agree with his central argument about the use of “due” and “due regard” and do not think that the amendment does what Jamie Greene intended it to—it weakens the regard that an authority would have to have to island communities. I will not go through them, but there are many examples in our legislation where we use “regard” as opposed to “due regard”, and it has the desired effect. I will not spend more time on amendment 43, other than to say that I associate myself with the remarks of Mike Rumbles and Stewart Stevenson.

Amendment 45 would, it seems, have the effect of limiting the duty to circumstances in which the authority believed that it had the ability or resource to undertake the requirements of the duty. Other members have asked whether that could be a good way out in the context of financial pressures and so on. I believe that the amendment would limit the impact of the section 7 duty on public authorities, and it would create a really unhelpful subjective test that might result in public bodies behaving differently in different localities.

Amendment 73 provides that “the relevant public authority” would determine what was compliant with the section 7 duty under section 9. I am not entirely sure what the intended effect is. Although I believe that an appeal or review mechanism is not required in the bill, the amendment might limit what we could put in the statutory guidance on any potential dispute resolution mechanism, or it could mean that each public authority would have discretion in relation to how to interpret or implement such guidance. I ask Jamie Greene to withdraw amendment 43 and not to move his other amendments.

Amendment 90 was lodged last Thursday by Colin Smyth, and I am grateful for his outline of the need for it, as he sees it. However, I cannot support it in its current form. The amendment is almost identical—word for word—to the provisions in paragraph (5) of regulation 5 of the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012. Although I appreciate that the equalities duty and the equality impact assessment legislation are similar to the island-proofing duty in section 7 and the assessment process in this bill, they are not the same. We cannot just lift a provision from one piece of legislation and slot it into another without giving a good deal of consideration to the impact that it will have. In this case, I do not think that the proposed provision would be fit for purpose.

I will first outline why I do not think that the amendment would be fit for purpose, but I will return to a feature of it that I think is worthy of further consideration. The amendment contains a requirement to review and, where necessary, revise any policy, strategy or service. I would argue that that is not needed, because it is already incorporated into the bill process. The duty in section 7 already covers the redevelopment of policies, strategies and services. Where a policy, strategy or service is to be redeveloped, the section 7 duty applies. A section 8 island communities impact assessment might need to be carried out. If not, the section 9 compliance provision requires authorities to take other steps that are needed. Sections 8 and 9 act as alternatives, depending on the circumstances.

The amendment that Colin Smyth has lodged seems to require a third process, which is not covered by section 8 or section 9. We would have to make significant changes to the bill to make that work—changes that are not needed, as it works in that way already. That is why I cannot support amendment 90.

However, the duty to review policies, strategies and services as expressed by amendment 90 is an interesting proposal. The requirement to have on-going flexibility and proportionate review processes seems a reasonable and sensible proposition. It would seem to be good practice that public authorities should follow. I would certainly be happy to see how we could cover it in guidance. It could also perhaps have another benefit. I know that the committee and others are keen on retrospective island proofing—for many reasons, I am not, but perhaps the suggestion of an on-going review process is a good compromise position. Asking relevant authorities to make such arrangements as they consider necessary to review any policy, strategy or service to ensure that it complies with section 7 would seem to provide the same benefit as a retrospective assessment process.

I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 90 but instead to work with the Government to come up with a fit-for-purpose review provision at stage 3 that captures the spirit of what he was trying to do.

I am happy to support amendments 21 and 22 from Gail Ross. They meet the recommendation of the committee to make each local authority mentioned in the schedule a statutory consultee in relation to statutory guidance.

I turn to Tavish Scott’s amendment 23. I fully understand the intention behind the amendment. Indeed, we have had similar amendments in legislation throughout the history of this Parliament, including, I am sure, when he was a minister, and I dare say that we will have more in the same vein. I accept that the content of the guidance will be key to understanding what the expectations on public bodies are in practice when it comes to implementing and delivering the island-proofing duty. As Mr Scott knows, we are of course required to consult. We are expected to do so meaningfully, and we are wholly committed to developing the guidance in collaboration with the relevant authorities and communities. The guidance will be detailed but will not stand still. It will need to be quick and flexible to respond, as Gail Ross said in relation to how duties are being used across Scotland. Given that the island-proofing duty is new and innovative, I anticipate that the process for getting it right in the longer term might well need to adapt and change with experience. Moreover, where we see good practice emerging, the guidance should be updated to reflect that practice.

The guidance will be a working document or series of documents that might need to be quickly adapted to what is happening, especially in the early days. We want to encourage innovation among public bodies and we want our public bodies to be flexible and responsive to the needs of island communities. This is not just about legislation but a culture change. I will of course wait to hear Mr Scott’s summing up but, as I read amendment 23, it would require every iteration of the guidance to come before Parliament for approval. That would not allow us to be responsive to such changes. In my view, it runs the risk of reducing flexibility and adaptability, and it might well slow things down.

It is not normal practice for the Parliament to approve guidance, for the very good reason that the Parliament has limited time. To look at detailed guidance every time that it changed would be quite a burden. However, I want to be as helpful as I can. Given the innovation involved—and bearing in mind what Mike Rumbles and Tavish Scott had to say—I would be willing to bring before Parliament the first version of that guidance in draft before it is published and implemented so that Parliament could contribute to the development process. I hope that that is a fair compromise.

I ask Tavish Scott not to move amendment 23, because of the concerns that I have outlined. I hope that my proposal to bring the draft guidance to Parliament for comment is a good compromise that gives him reassurance.

10:15  

Jamie Greene

I thank members for their feedback and comments, which were useful and helpful. It is absolutely not my intention to weaken the bill, which is a good bill that we are all working hard to strengthen as best we can. In my experience, the addition of the word “due” has always strengthened and not weakened, but I accept Stewart Stevenson’s point about amendment 43 that it may be interpreted as restricting rather than expanding the phrase “having regard to”.

With amendment 45, I am trying to make an important point. I am in no way trying to give authorities that are listed in the schedule a loophole or wriggle room that would allow them not to fulfil their obligations under section 7. That is a really important point. Given the scale and the broad range of agencies, in my head there are hypothetical examples in which an authority may be unable to “have regard to” an island community in its actions, for a number of reasons. I promised to give some examples, so I will do so. I am happy to be corrected on those, so members should feel free to intervene if they think that I am wrong.

One of the agencies that is listed in the schedule is David MacBrayne Ltd, which operates CalMac Ferries. I know of a situation in which it has made timetabling changes that will affect an island community off in the west coast, but it obviously takes direction on timetabling from decisions that are made by Transport Scotland, and therefore might have been unable to do otherwise on that.

John Mason

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene

Just let me make this point, then I will take the intervention.

That decision will inevitably have a negative consequence for islanders and the island community, but nonetheless the listed body—David MacBrayne Ltd—was unable to have regard to the island because the decision was made by another body. That is an example of where the additional wording—

“insofar as it is capable”—

will allow a body to make decisions based on the limitations of its decision-making ability.

I will take an intervention from John Mason in a second, but another example is VisitScotland. If, as a result of funding restrictions or a wider general central Government policy to reduce the number of buildings or staff, a visitor centre on an island was closed, VisitScotland would be implementing that decision but not necessarily introducing it. In that situation, how could VisitScotland have regard to the island community? It is about an organisation’s capability to have regard to island communities when the decisions are external to it.

My final example relates to colleges. As a result of a central policy of consolidation, a study facility on an island might be closed, as has happened in Ayrshire, for example. Would a college be able to have regard to island communities if it was being forced by another hand to make decisions that would have a negative impact on an island?

I will give way to John Mason.

John Mason

I first want to say that I agree with amendment 43 that “due regard” is better than “regard”. However, it seems to me that “having due regard” means “taking into consideration” or “thinking about” and those kinds of things, and so does not guarantee that the bodies will then do what island communities want. I therefore wonder whether amendment 45 is necessary and whether it would actually change anything. Indeed, it would give authorities a kind of excuse to get out of things, whereas under the bill as it stands they will have to “have regard to”, listen and consider, which will not, however, bind them to doing what someone else wants.

Jamie Greene

I accept that point, which is important. The island-proofing concept—that the bodies that are listed in the schedule will “have regard to” island communities—does not necessarily mean that they will always be able to mitigate issues.

Stewart Stevenson

Will the member take a brief intervention?

Jamie Greene

I will finish commenting on John Mason’s intervention, first.

The point that I am making with amendment 45 is that it might not always be possible for an authority or body to have regard to island communities if doing so is outside its capability, such as in the examples that I gave.

Stewart Stevenson

On amendment 45, were the words

“insofar as it is capable”,

to be included, we would end up saying, in effect, that a relevant authority may disregard island communities in carrying out its functions if it is not capable. That is what section 7 will mean if the amendment is accepted. That would simply be a blank cheque for a return to the status quo, and I could not possibly accept that.

Jamie Greene

I am saddened that Stewart Stevenson cannot accept amendment 45. However, I understand his point about that interpretation of the words that I have used being an unintended consequence.

I would, though, like the minister to reflect on the point that I am trying to make with amendment 45, which is that there will be decisions that bodies that are listed in the schedule will adhere to that are outwith their control. I do not think that those bodies’ ability to comply with section 7 is adequately catered for in the bill. Nevertheless, I am minded not to move amendment 45.

Similarly, for amendment 73, I have made the point that I would like to think that the guidance will include very clear instructions to public authorities on what compliance is—what it means to each body and how they can interpret it for the ways in which they operate individually, in terms of their working practices, how they make decisions and policies, and how they develop strategies with regard to islands. However, I am minded also not to press that amendment.

I will, however, consider whether to do so subject to what Tavish Scott decides to do with amendment 23. I was quite taken with his argument that Parliament should have the opportunity to review guidance. If he chooses to take the minister’s offer to present a draft to Parliament, I would accept that, but if he were to press the amendment, I would be minded to support it.

Thank you.

The Convener

Jamie—will you please clarify whether you are pressing or seeking to withdraw amendment 43?

Jamie Greene

I will press amendment 43.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 43 disagreed to.

Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 46 to 59 and 86.

Humza Yousaf

I will speak to my amendment 5 first, and then to the other amendments in the group.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, in its stage 1 report, recommended a minor change to the power in section 7(3). It recommended that the bill should be amended to include

“a power to vary the description of an entry”

in the list of relevant authorities in the schedule. That would be in addition to the existing powers to remove an entry from the list or to add one.

Amendment 5, which has been lodged in my name, will give effect to that recommendation by providing a new power to vary the description of an entry in the schedule. Any regulations that would be made by virtue of that new power would be subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope, therefore, that members will support amendment 5.

I would find it helpful to hear from Jamie Greene his thinking about amendment 46. My reading of the amendment is that it seeks to give ministers a very wide-ranging subordinate legislation power to “amend the functions” of relevant authorities that are set out in legislation

“insofar as they relate to island communities.”

It is not clear what sort of function the member has in mind for use of such a provision.

In addition, there do not seem to be any criteria for the exercise of the power or any real process envisaged before ministers can make such regulations. Such a wide power—dare I say it, a Henry VIII power?—might normally be avoided because they are often seen to give the Government too much power. There have been many previous occasions when Parliament has been somewhat loth to give the Government such powers. On that basis, perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, I ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 46 and the consequential amendment 86.

I turn to amendment 47, in the name of Colin Smyth. As with amendment 46, I would like to hear the reasoning behind it. On the face of it, amendment 47 is unnecessary. It appears that it would allow those that are contracted to provide services for relevant authorities to be added to the schedule, which would make them subject to the island-proofing duty under section 7. However, section 7(3), already allows “any person” to be added to the schedule.

What amendment 47 cannot do is remove overarching competence or restrictions that limit use of that power. As we discussed during stage 1, that is not required. The committee agreed with that assessment and accepted that the Government would not be able to require public or private companies to island proof their activities. It is clear that section 7 of the bill will require the relevant authorities that create the policy, strategy or service and then deliver it through commercial companies, to have regard to the needs and circumstances of island communities when drawing up a contract.

Amendments 48 and 49 seek to add the Boundary Commission for Scotland and the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to the schedule. The effect of that would be that those bodies would be required to comply with the duties that are set out in part 3 of the bill. Unfortunately, the Boundary Commission for Scotland is a reserved body, so it cannot be added to the list. I therefore ask Mr Smyth not to move amendment 48.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland already has a specific set of duties in legislation. Given its independent role in relation to boundary reviews, it seems that it would not be appropriate to include it as a relevant authority. For that reason, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 49.

The next batch of amendments in the name of Colin Smyth—amendments 50 to 58—seek to make changes to the bill’s schedule by adding the remaining NHS boards. In principle, I have no objections to those amendments, but before confirming the Government’s willingness to accept them, I would appreciate hearing the member’s reasons for lodging them.

Amendment 59 in the name of Colin Smyth is in a similar vein, in that it seeks to change the list of bodies in the schedule in relation to integration joint boards. As with amendments 50 to 58, we have no real objection to that, apart from a minor drafting point, so I would appreciate hearing the member’s thinking behind the amendment before I can confirm the Government’s willingness to accept it. The minor drafting point is that amendment 59 refers to an order that established the board, when it could be better future proofed if it were to refer to an order under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. I am happy to work with the member to address that point if he chooses not to move amendment 59 at this stage, with a view to bringing back an appropriately technically drafted amendment at stage 3.

I move amendment 5.

Jamie Greene

I thank the minister for his comments. I do not wish to give unnecessary additional power to ministers—that is far from my intention—but I must point out that a similarly worded amendment to the recent UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill was welcomed by ministers and accepted by the Finance and Constitution Committee. I think that I lodged that amendment, so I am not making a political point.

Amendment 46 is on a technical point on which I was trying to be helpful. If the minister says that it is not helpful, I am happy not to move it.

Section 11(3) will allow ministers to add a body to or remove an entry from the schedule, which seems to be straightforward. It is perhaps not reflected in the language of amendment 46, but I am trying to make the point that the bodies that are listed in the schedule could change in nature, name and function, so it would be helpful if the minister had flexibility to amend the agencies that are listed without necessarily taking them off the schedule or having to re-add them if they were to change. An example is the Forestry Commission Scotland: its structure might change, but that is not reflected in the schedule.

10:30  

There may be bodies in the schedule that currently have functions that relate to island communities, but they may not have such functions in the future were their remit to change. At that point, would we want to keep them in the schedule, so that they still

“must have regard to island communities”

rather than being able only to remove them? Again, I am happy to accept, if the wording of amendment 46 would not achieve my aim, that the issue could be looked at again at a later stage.

Amendment 86 is a technical amendment. It would replace the reference in section 21(2)(a) to section 7(3) with a reference to section 7. In retrospect, I think if all of section 7 were subject to affirmative procedure, that would be an onerous task, so I will probably not press that amendment.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 47 in my name aims to widen the list of relevant authorities to include publicly funded service providers. Publicly funded service providers often provide vital services for island communities. Given that they receive public money, they should be required to have the same regard to island communities as public bodies. Serco NorthLink is an example of an organisation that would fall into that category. It provides vital services to island communities. As such, it should be required to island proof its policies in the same way that a public body would be required to do.

Amendment 48 would add the Boundary Commission for Scotland to the schedule of relevant authorities. The addition would strengthen the protection of representation and participation in island communities.

Amendment 49 has the same aim, and would add the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to the schedule. [Interruption.]

The Convener

Make sure that you speak up a bit when you ask for an intervention, Jamie.

Jamie Greene

I apologise. I thought that Colin Smyth had heard me.

Amendment 47 is an interesting one. We debated in committee at great length whether subcontractors would be covered in the legislation or whether they would need to be specifically referred to.

Colin Smyth makes an interesting point about the need for the duty to relate to all parties involved in the delivery of public services in island communities, but I am unclear about the consequence of amendment 47 on subcontractors to the public bodies that would be subject to the legislation. Will the member confirm whether he has given any thought to that issue?

Colin Smyth

The first thing to point out is that amendment 47 has been requested by island authorities and other local authorities. They are concerned that, because subcontractors receive public money, their being covered under the bill would strengthen the requirement for them to

“have regard to island communities”

in the same way that public bodies “must have regard”. The amendment would strengthen the existing provisions.

I take on board what Jamie Greene and the minister have said, and I will listen to what members say during the debate.

Stewart Stevenson

Colin Smyth identified Serco NorthLink as an example. That company provides services to both the private and the public sectors throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. Does he mean Serco NorthLink? Does my question simply illustrate the difficulty of applying amendment 47 in the way that he describes?

Colin Smyth

I do not entirely recognise the point that Stewart Stevenson is making. That company very much provides island community services, and the aim of amendment 47 is to cover such companies.

John Finnie

I support amendment 47. Does Colin Smyth agree with me that the amendment would be entirely consistent with, for example, the guidance—I forget the specific title—that the Scottish Government gives to people on fair work provision? We want to commend good practice through public procurement.

Colin Smyth

John Finnie makes a very valid point. The fair work conditions should be expanded beyond public bodies to cover, say, bus services—on which there will be a debate this afternoon—or ferry provision. More and more services are being subcontracted to and provided by bodies that are not classed as public bodies, and there are deep concerns about the provision of some of those services. As a result, the aim of amendment 47 is to strengthen existing provision.

I have already touched on amendments 48 and 49. On amendments 50 to 58, I think that anyone who represents a rural area will understand that people get services not just from health boards that geographically cover the area in question but other health boards. People often have to travel outwith their rural area to receive healthcare, and these amendments ensure that the bill covers all national health service boards that will ultimately provide services to island communities. Those that provide no services to those communities will not be subject to any additional burdens, as none of their work will impact on them, but, as I have said, I do not think that it is reasonable to include in the bill only health boards that geographically cover island communities, given that services are often provided by other health boards. The same goes for amendment 59, which covers integration joint boards.

Jamie Greene

Will the member take an intervention?

Colin Smyth

Yes.

Jamie Greene

This is another really interesting addition to the debate about other bodies that are not mentioned in the schedule, and I think that the member is right to bring the matter up. As we know, other bodies deliver services on behalf of NHS boards that cover islands. However, the question is whether those services are being provided under contracts between health boards. In that respect, what regard have you given to the legal and transactional relationships between health boards? After all, it is the home health board that is responsible for delivering a service; however, if it cannot do so, it will subcontract that responsibility to another health board. In such cases, is it fair to make that third party conform to the legislation when it is the home health board or IJB that is delivering the service on behalf of the patient? I am keen not to put onerous responsibilities on health boards that do not cover island communities and which are doing the best they can under subcontracted arrangements.

Colin Smyth

It is a valid point, and I am sure that it will be discussed in the debate. My concern is with the existing loophole in which a health board that does not geographically cover an island community might not ensure that its policies are fit for purpose when it comes to providing a particular service to someone from that community. It is almost a belt-and-braces approach. If there is clear evidence that this matter is covered under the home health board’s responsibilities, I will consider the member’s point as valid, but I have not been convinced by the argument to date.

I have no problems with amendments 5 and 46, which appear to do the same thing. We will see what happens when it comes to the vote.

Mike Rumbles

In the 19 years since I was first elected to this Parliament, I have never seen a minister refuse the Henry VIII powers that the member is proposing to give through amendment 46, and I congratulate this minister for doing so. I cannot believe that this amendment has been lodged, and I say “Well done” to the minister for recognising that fact and for refusing those powers. I really hope that amendment 46 is not moved, but, if it is, I will most certainly vote against it.

As for amendments 50 to 58, they are well intended, but I, too, am reluctant to put any more onerous tasks on to health boards. However, I simply wanted to make the point about amendment 46 and to ensure that my congratulations to the minister for taking this unique position are put on the record.

The Convener

I am not sure that I would labour the point too much, Mike. It might come back to bite both of you.

Tavish Scott

I will speak to Colin Smyth’s amendments 50 to 58. He makes a really strong point. Some of us represent areas where patients have to go to health boards in other parts of Scotland, and that happens pretty regularly. Colin Smyth is simply asking that that is taken into account. They are good amendments. I could give you—and Liam McArthur and Gail Ross could probably do the same—a huge number of examples of patients who have to go to Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow for different procedures. Those of us who represent those folk sometimes have to make representations to the relevant health board about what has happened or about some difficulty to do with transport or their treatment.

It is not a criticism at all of those health boards; it is simply that we ask, as Colin Smyth’s amendments rightly do, that that is taken into account.

John Mason

I was fairly convinced by Jamie Greene’s argument, which I thought was a strong one. Would it be the responsibility of NHS Shetland to tell NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde or NHS Grampian, for example, to take the island factor into account by, for example, not giving the patient an appointment first thing on a Monday morning?

Tavish Scott

The island health boards—and no doubt NHS Highland does the same—certainly make best provision in that regard, but it is not a foolproof system and the nature of health board bureaucracies means that you do not necessarily get to the right person. I suggest to you—I am sure that you have similar experiences as a constituency member—that when an MSP’s office sends a letter or an email that simply says, “Mrs Mason has not been able to get treatment at the right time—she is coming all the way from Shetland. Would you please chase that up?”, it has some effect. We are just seeking to make sure, through Colin Smyth’s amendments, that that issue is taken into account.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

I associate myself with Tavish Scott’s comments about Colin Smyth’s amendments. In response to John Mason’s intervention, I think that one of the problems is that at the point of transfer, patients become patients of NHS Grampian, for example. The extent to which the island health boards can intervene is therefore limited. I am sure that there is dialogue, but essentially, the responsibility passes to the mainland health board. There is good reason for that, but it underscores the importance of what Colin Smyth’s amendments are driving at.

Stewart Stevenson

I have constituents who are sent by health boards in Scotland to have treatment outwith Scotland and indeed outwith the UK. Great Ormond Street hospital, for example, is a regular outpost for specialist care for young people. I have had constituents who have gone to the Netherlands; others have gone to Leeds. I am not objecting to extending the list, but we are excluding things and I am slightly conflicted about what is going on here.

Tavish Scott

I take Mr Stevenson’s point; I also have constituents who travel outwith Scotland for medical procedures of one kind or another. The logical answer is that we are dealing with a Scottish bill in the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish public bodies. That would be my only argument in relation to that point.

I simply ask the committee to reflect on Colin Smyth’s amendments, because I think that there is considerable merit in them.

Mike Rumbles

I place on record that I am also now convinced by the argument that my colleague has made and I will be supporting Colin Smyth’s amendments.

Tavish Scott

That just goes to show that the Liberal Democrat script is never written until the last speech is made. I would simply ask the committee to reflect on Colin Smyth’s reasoned arguments. Certainly from my constituency perspective, the amendments would be enormously helpful.

Humza Yousaf

After hearing such gushing praise from Mike Rumbles, I am reconsidering my opposition to Jamie Greene’s amendment. Having reconsidered it, however, I think that we would still object. I am not convinced, despite Mike Rumbles’s best efforts, that these amendments to the bill are needed. I therefore ask the member not to move them.

Having listened carefully to Colin Smyth, I still believe that his amendment 47 is not necessary. He gave the example of Serco. The Serco contract would, in essence, be island proofed, because Scottish ministers would be the ones to award it. Therefore, I am not convinced by that example. Indeed, I can think of other examples that would not be within the remit of the bill. However, I think that there are still some questions to be asked around placing a duty on private companies, and I know from its stage 1 report that the committee agrees with me on that point.

In relation to Colin Smyth’s amendment 48, the Boundary Commission for Scotland is a reserved body and therefore cannot be added to the list of bodies in the bill’s schedule, so I ask him not to move it.

I listened carefully to an insightful and interesting discussion from members who represent rural and island local authorities. Therefore, having listened to the reasoning for Colin Smyth’s amendments 49 to 59, which add bodies to the schedule, I am happy to support them, subject to the minor drafting change to amendment 59 to which I referred earlier. Perhaps we can work on that.

I ask members to support amendment 5 in my name.

10:45  

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 47 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 47 disagreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule—Duties in relation to island communities: relevant authorities

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 49 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 49 agreed to.

Amendments 50 to 58 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 59 is in the name of Colin Smyth.

Colin Smyth

I am sure that the language could be tightened up at stage 3 if there are concerns about the wording, but I will move the amendment at this stage.

Amendment 59 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Island communities impact assessment

Amendment 60 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 61, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendment 65.

Colin Smyth

These very minor amendments are edits to the wording of the provisions on impact assessment. They have come from discussions with local authorities. In both instances, the wording was considered to be too subjective: the term “significantly” is not clear and the inclusion of “in the authority’s opinion” ultimately allows the authority in question to determine whether an impact assessment is necessary. There are potential get-out risks that undermine the purpose of the creation of impact assessments, hence the two very minor amendments.

I move amendment 61.

Peter Chapman

I support Colin Smyth’s amendment 61, which is useful. The change that he proposes is small but important. A lot of today’s amendments seem to bring me back to the same point, which is that this is a community empowerment bill. Local action groups, community groups and constituents should be able to suggest issues with legislation that they feel warrant an island impact assessment: it should not be just down to the authority’s opinion.

However, I do not agree with amendment 65, which would remove the word “significantly”. People who live on islands will always have different experiences from those who live on the mainland. A piece of legislation has to have a significant impact on an island community to warrant an island impact assessment, therefore I will not support amendment 65.

Liam McArthur

I thank Colin Smyth for lodging his amendments. They very helpfully try to address a problem with the bar being set too high—that is particularly true of amendment 61, which would delete the reference to “in the authority’s opinion”. Removal of that phrase would at least avoid some of the problems that would be created if public authorities were to be in constant conflict with communities that might have a different perspective on the policy proposal or piece of legislation that is being introduced.

I have some sympathy with Peter Chapman’s comment on the word “significantly”. Every time that the addition or removal of that word arises in the context of legislation, we have a debate about how subjective it is. I would be the first to accept that, however well crafted the legislation might be, it is perhaps likely to have a different impact on island communities than on mainland communities.

The more important amendment in the group is amendment 61, which, as I said, would remove the scope for public bodies to be arbiters on what falls within the ambit of the legislation. I would be very keen to see that agreed to.

Stewart Stevenson

If the decision is not to be based on “the authority’s opinion”, whose opinion should it be based on? Removing that wording, as amendment 61 would do, perhaps leaves that somewhat uncertain. The same is true of the term “significantly”, which would be removed by amendment 65.

We must read the amendments in the context of the provisions in section 9. Those relate to compliance with the duty in section 7—which we have just agreed to—that requires not “due regard” but “regard” to be had by the relevant authorities, which are those that are described in the schedule. We cannot detach the amendments that we seek to make to section 8 from the overriding requirement in section 9 to implement, in a particular way, what is in section 7, and to provide evidence of what is being done.

Therefore, I am not yet persuaded that Colin Smyth’s amendments 61 and 65 are helpful. Amendment 61, in particular, carries some danger that it would introduce lack of clarity, whereas, at the moment, the bill is perfectly clear on where responsibility lies.

Jamie Greene

The discussion is interesting, and Colin Smyth has proposed some interesting amendments. I am minded to support amendment 61. Let us remember that section 8 is about preparing impact assessments. The inclusion in the bill of the words “in the authority’s opinion” almost does what my previous amendments sought to do—to introduce some subjectivity to the authority in deciding whether an impact assessment should be done. We have just agreed that that is not the right way forward. I would be minded to remove that subjectivity by removing the words “in the authority’s opinion”; that would have a positive effect on section 8.

Amendment 65 concerns the phrase “significantly different”. Authorities will always have decisions to make in which the outcome will be different on islands compared with the mainland. The inclusion of the word “significantly” means that an impact assessment would be merited; without it, an island impact assessment might have to be done for every decision that is made across all levels of every authority. That would apply to all the authorities—there were 66, but there are more now—in the schedule, which would place unparalleled amounts of work on those bodies. The term “significantly” is reasonably well defined, which means that if something is sufficiently great or noteworthy it would require or merit an impact assessment. The removal of “in the authority’s opinion” and the retention of “significantly” go hand in hand, and both would have a net positive effect on section 8. I am minded to support amendment 61, but not amendment 65.

John Finnie

I align myself entirely with Stewart Stevenson’s comments about the phrase “in the authority’s opinion”. As someone who represents the area, it could be easy for me to discount that. However, as Stewart Stevenson said, we should look at the very first line of section 8, which states:

“A relevant authority must prepare”.

Obviously, the authority will have to have regard to a number of factors, but I do not think that the phrase “in the authority’s opinion” is redundant, and I do not think that it should, in itself, be restricting. I will not support amendment 61, in the name of Colin Smyth, but I will support amendment 65.

Humza Yousaf

I challenge the premise that the amendments in the group are minor. Their impact could be significant. I welcome the explanations by Colin Smyth and other members of the amendments, and their opinions on them. Amendment 61 would remove the phrase “in the authority’s opinion” from the bill. I do not agree that that amendment is required but, as Stewart Stevenson said, it would take away the phrase but not replace it with anything.

The decision to undertake an impact assessment will always require a subjective judgment. When a duty of that kind is placed on a public body in legislation, it is entirely appropriate that the public body should make the initial judgment of the impact of its policies. The guidance under section 10 makes it clear that the opinion should be based on a sufficient screening process that provides that those persons who may be affected by a policy, strategy or service have the opportunity to provide input. I hope that that addresses an element of Liam McArthur’s concerns.

Stewart Stevenson

The bill refers to a policy, strategy or service that,

“in the authority’s opinion, is likely to have an effect”.

If we agreed to amendment 61, we would be leaving in the words “is likely to have”. In other words, someone would have to exercise judgment—that is what “is likely to have” requires—but without the words “in the authority’s opinion” it would no longer be clear who would exercise that judgment and we would have difficulty in holding anyone to account for decisions that were made. Is that not the crux of the issue, minister?

Humza Yousaf

It is entirely the crux of the issue, which I was about to come to. Stewart Stevenson is right to make that point. At some point, a decision absolutely has to be made.

11:00  

Mike Rumbles

Contrary to what Stewart Stevenson just said, surely if it is the authority’s opinion that something could have an effect on an island community, another organisation—or the community itself—might take a different view, but those people’s views might be overridden. If we remove “in the authority’s opinion”, it is absolutely clear, because the provision would simply read:

“A relevant authority must prepare an island communities impact assessment”

in relation to something

“which is likely to have an effect on an island community”.

As the bill is drafted, there is quite clearly a get-out clause for the authority.

Humza Yousaf

I disagree slightly with you. If Colin Smyth’s amendment sought to replace “the authority’s opinion” with “the community’s opinion”, you might well be right, but that would still not prevent the scenario that you articulate from playing out.

Let me return to the point that I made before Stewart Stevenson intervened. Section 10 makes clear that there is a screening process and provides that persons who are “likely to be affected” by any legislation, policy or strategy—that is, island communities—will have the opportunity to provide input.

As I said, the bill makes clear—as I think that it must do—who makes the decision, and amendment 61 would make that less clear. In practice, the public body would likely still be the one that made the decision, but amendment 61 would introduce an unwelcome element of doubt and uncertainty in that regard. This has been a fascinating debate, but I ask Colin Smyth to withdraw amendment 61. If he presses his amendment, I ask committee members not to agree to it.

Amendment 65, also in Colin Smyth’s name, would remove the word “significantly”. We have had insightful comments and a helpful debate on the proposal. The bill as drafted provides that the relevant authority

“must prepare an island communities impact assessment”

if a new or revised policy, service or strategy has an impact that is

“significantly different from its effect on other communities”.

I agree with Jamie Greene and other members who made the point that, given that Mr Smyth did not propose an alternative to “significantly”, the effect of amendment 65 would be that a new or revised policy, service or strategy that had any differential impact on an island community, no matter how small, would require an island communities impact assessment to be carried out. Such an approach could lead to unnecessary assessment of relatively minor changes. The removal of the threshold of significance would impose an undue regulatory burden on public authorities.

Let me give an example. One of the bodies that will now be in the bill, as a result of amendment 52, in Colin Smyth’s name, is NHS Fife. Are we saying that an island communities impact assessment should be undertaken for every policy, strategy and service decision in Fife? That seems to be wrong and burdensome. It has the makings of a bureaucratic nightmare.

John Finnie

The reality is that it is incumbent on everyone to consider all the factors that the Parliament wants them to consider. For example, there are reserved issues to do with equalities, health and safety and the like. What is proposed could be a default position; it need not become a huge bureaucratic task. There has to be recognition of the impact of decisions about hospital appointments, for instance, on people in the islands. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask bodies to consider the implications of their decisions.

Humza Yousaf

Let me go back to my point about NHS Fife. I suspect that most NHS Fife services, policies and guidance would have an impact on island communities that is different from the impact on the communities in Fife that the board predominantly serves. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare if the board had to do an impact assessment for everything. That is not the intention in the bill, and I do not think that the Parliament would want that.

The bill as introduced strikes the right balance. The section 7 duty will apply even where there is no requirement for an assessment, and section 9 provides that an assessment can be carried out in any case.

My final point is that, in the evidence that the committee has taken from island communities, there was a lot of comment about the need to avoid a tick-box exercise and to have a system that is agile and fit for purpose. I believe that, with the extra burden that amendment 65 would create, any policy with any differential impact on island communities would effectively encourage such a tick-box culture and diminish the objective that we are all seeking to achieve for islands and island communities. The use of such assessments will be seen as an impediment to change rather than a useful tool to bring others into the decision-making process, and that would, of course, be unfortunate.

I therefore urge Colin Smyth not to press amendment 61 but, if he does, I ask other members not to support it.

Colin Smyth

On amendment 61, I would say, first of all, that my reference to its being minor relates to the extent to which it would change the wording in section 8 and certainly not to its impact. In my view, the phrase “in the authority’s opinion” moves the balance of power too far in the authority’s direction, and there is a risk that it could be used as a way out of having to do an impact assessment. I therefore think that the phrase is unnecessary, and I will certainly press amendment 61 in order to remove it.

I take on board what members have said about amendment 65 and its deletion of the word “significantly”. I still think that the original provision is very unclear. I do not expect this amending of the language to cause the chaos that members have talked about, with authorities having to write reams and reams of impact assessments. After all, that is not how such assessments work on the ground. Local authorities regularly carry out assessments on policy changes, and I do not agree that this will put a massive burden on local authorities, as long as the process is carried out appropriately and sensibly. On balance, I am not clear what the word “significantly” means in this context, and therefore I see no harm in moving amendment 65, too. As I have said, it would not put any undue burden on the local authorities.

The minister is right to point out that I have not suggested any alternative phrases, but that might be for other members to propose at a later date.

Jamie Greene

Will the member take an intervention?

Colin Smyth

I was just about to finish, but yes, I will.

Jamie Greene

I have a brief technical question. We are being asked to remove the word “significantly” from section 8, but I see no amendment that seeks to remove it from section 12, which relates to the same impact assessments being undertaken by ministers, not local authorities. That would, unfortunately, lead to a difference in meaning between sections 8 and 12, which would need to be tidied up by the legislation team.

Colin Smyth

That is a valid point. I am sure that that will be tidied up and that, if it is not, Jamie Greene will lodge an amendment to remove the word “significantly” from section 12 at a future stage.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 61 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 62, in the name of Peter Chapman, is grouped with amendment 64.

Peter Chapman

Much like Colin Smyth’s previous amendments, these amendments make only small changes to the wording of the bill, but they will, I think, have a significant impact.

It was widely agreed at stage 1 that it was unrealistic to carry out retrospective island communities impact assessments on a large scale and on every piece of existing legislation. I accept that, but the committee also agreed that in severe cases where existing legislation is having a major impact, carrying out assessments would be the only way for the bill to achieve what it is setting out to do. This legislation needs to be able to look at any existing legislation that is having a major impact on island communities.

Richard Lyle

Could the member explain to me whether, when it says that all relevant authorities are required to prepare an island communities impact assessment, that includes North Lanarkshire Council, which does not have any islands?

Peter Chapman

No, it would not include an authority that does not have islands.

Richard Lyle

Your amendment does not say that. It would mean that all public authorities would have to review all previous policies, services and strategies, which means that councils that do not have islands would have to review their policies, services and strategies too. That seems a bit stupid to me.

Peter Chapman

All that I am doing is adding three words to what is in the bill. I cannot understand why that creates any uncertainty with regard to the authorities that have islands within their boundaries.

Mike Rumbles has just pointed out to me that the section says “a relevant authority”.

The Convener

Would you like to make an intervention, Mr Rumbles?

Mike Rumbles

The section says “a relevant authority”, so what Richard Lyle is saying is nonsense itself.

The Convener

Mr Rumbles, I think that the question to Mr Chapman in your intervention was, “Would you agree that the section refers to ‘a relevant authority’?” We will ignore everything that you said apart from that.

Peter Chapman

I agree with that point. What I am saying is perfectly clear.

John Mason

I am just trying to think of an example. Crofting legislation, which can be quite major, would include islands. The amendment would mean that all the crofting legislation would have to be reviewed. It might be reviewed anyway and, if it is reviewed, an island communities impact assessment would have to be done. Are you asking for incredibly complex areas of legislation and policy, such as crofting, to be completely reviewed? Would there be a cost to doing that?

Peter Chapman

We are in the midst of a review of crofting legislation, as Mr Mason knows.

I am saying that there must be a mechanism whereby existing legislation that has major impacts must be examined. I stand by that. The legislation might be fairly complex but, nevertheless, if it is having a major impact on island communities, it is only right that it is examined.

I move amendment 62.

John Finnie

As was the case with amendment 61, it would be simple for someone representing the area that I represent to say that amendment 62 is good. However, we are making law here, and there are issues around the retrospective implications of the amendment, some of which have been touched on. Peter Chapman used the terms “severe” and “major” and talked about existing legislation and policy. I think that there will be a severe deficiency in existing legislation and policy if, on an on-going basis, there is a detrimental effect on any sector, be that a group of individuals, people in a workforce, people in Edinburgh and Glasgow city centres or people in the northern isles, and that is not addressed.

The mechanism of post-legislative scrutiny exists, but this is about expectations. What I want is realism to be injected into things. If there are deficiencies in any policy or legislation, I would hope that I and colleagues across the Highlands and Islands would draw attention to them and seek to have them addressed. However, the amendment has the potential to create a significant bureaucratic exercise, as John Mason pointed out, and I regret that I will not be supporting it.

Jamie Greene

I am listening with interest to the debate. My understanding is that Peter Chapman is trying to introduce the technical option of retrospective assessment. According to my reading of the bill, that does not exist at the moment. The bill is concerned with future proofing, and rightly so. However, the committee has discussed whether public authorities and ministers should have the ability to retrospectively examine decisions that have been made that have a significant impact, but the bill does not provide for that to happen.

11:15  

Amendment 62 does not say that all legislation, all decisions and all policies and strategies will have to be retrospectively assessed. In the context of what we previously discussed, the amendment simply adds the words “or have had” to the reference to any policy, strategy or service that

“in the authority’s opinion”—

that phrase is staying in the bill—

“is likely to have an effect”.

That gives public authorities the option, where required, to retrospectively create an impact assessment. That is a good thing and it would be welcomed by islanders and island communities.

Gail Ross

We discussed the matter on the islands and in the committee to a great extent. We also discussed it last week, when the minister gave a commitment that any local authority that comes forward with any legislation that it feels is detrimental will be given a fair hearing. Is that not enough?

Jamie Greene

The minister gave a welcome commitment, but the issue it not just about local authorities. There are 66 bodies in the schedule—in fact, there are now more than 70—that will be affected by the bill. Again, I make the point that amendment 62 would not automatically mean that all legislation would have to be retrospectively assessed.

John Mason

Will the member give way?

Jamie Greene

I am responding to Gail Ross’s point. Although the minister’s commitment that any body that wishes to retrospectively assess its decisions is welcome to do so, at the moment there is nothing in the bill that would enable a body to do that in the context of its obligations under section 7. The bill is forward thinking, and I do not see any harm in the technical addition of being able to look retrospectively at decisions that have been made.

John Mason

Jamie Greene suggests that authorities do not have the ability to carry out an assessment or a review at the moment. Is he really saying that Government ministers, local authorities and health boards do not have the ability to go back? Surely they currently have that ability, but they are not required to go back. Section 8 states that

“A relevant authority must prepare”

an assessment, so he is suggesting that, if it thinks that there is a significant difference, it “must” prepare an impact assessment.

Jamie Greene

The authority must prepare an assessment when “in the authority’s opinion” something has had an effect, if Mr Chapman’s words are included. Again, it is not a blanket rule that they must prepare an impact assessment on every decision that has been made.

The same argument was used in the debate on the previous grouping about whether the reference to a local authority’s subjective opinion should stay in the bill, and we agreed that it should. The local authority makes the decision about whether an impact assessment should be created. As it stands, local authorities will be able to do that for future decisions, and Mr Chapman wants them to be able to do it for historic decisions. I cannot see any harm in that. That ability must surely be a welcome addition. It will not place any additional burden or additional requirements on local authorities. It simply—

John Finnie

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene

Amendment 62 is not even my amendment, but I am happy to continue the debate.

The Convener

I am sorry to interrupt, but nearly every member of the committee has now had a chance to speak, or is on the list to speak. It gets quite difficult if people are intervening the whole time even though they have already spoken or are about to speak. I ask members to be cautious of timings, because I do not want to curtail the debate, and I want to allow interventions.

John Finnie

I am grateful to Jamie Greene for taking the intervention. He talked about creation. Is there the potential that unrealistic expectations could be created? That is what some of the information suggested when we visited the islands.

Jamie Greene

That is a really good point. A lot of the discussion about the bill has been on whether it creates unrealistic expectations in island communities. I do not think that it does. If anything, the amendment will provide the opportunity for public bodies to retrospectively make an island impact assessment. I thought that that would have been more welcome.

It is important that we set expectations. We must make it clear that, if the amendment is agreed to, not every piece of legislation that has ever been passed by Parliament and not every policy decision that has ever been made by a public body will be reviewed. That will absolutely not be the case, and the specific words that are used do not require that to be the case. There will simply be an option, and that is very welcome.

Mike Rumbles

Let us get to the nub of the issue. The question is fundamentally important. We took evidence on the issue at stage 1, and I took it that islanders have an expectation. I am quite surprised by John Finnie’s comments. There is a perception that the bill will enable public authorities to examine significant effects retrospectively, so the issue is a fundamental one, and I am surprised that it seems to be dividing the committee.

If we agree to Peter Chapman’s amendments, we will be in favour of retrospective examination. If we do not agree to them—I know that John Finnie is minded not to—we will be making it absolutely clear that we are not in favour of allowing retrospective examination under the bill. I would appreciate some clarification from John Finnie. If he is saying that we should just leave that to ministers or public bodies themselves without there being any legislative requirement, I would be interested to hear that argument. However, we are making the law of the land, and Peter Chapman’s amendments are quite clear. If we agree to them, we will be saying that we are in favour of retrospective examination; if we do not agree to them, we will not be saying that. If we do not agree to the amendments at stage 2, they will certainly come back at stage 3, as the issue is a fundamental aspect of the bill.

John Finnie

There is not a simple binary choice, of course. I explained that good practice would be that an organisation would review its policies on an on-going basis and that, if there was any disadvantage to any group or any geographical area as a result of how a policy was applied, that should be addressed. That should be happening anyway.

Mike Rumbles

I understand what John Finnie is saying, but he is basically saying that it is good practice for organisations to do that and that we need to have good faith that they will do it. However, we are making the law, and there is a requirement to have them do it. That is the difference in the argument. Should we put that in the law or not put it in the law and allow people to have good practice? That is the key. I am not trying to make a political point; I am genuinely surprised by John Finnie’s view.

Stewart Stevenson

My first and most straightforward point is that no one has pointed to a power that prevents any body on the list from retrospectively assessing something that has happened in the past. Therefore, there is no requirement to create a power because there is no prohibition. Under recent legislation, we have said that, through community empowerment, councils and others can do whatever they want unless that is forbidden. We have turned the whole thing on its head.

My second point is that we have preserved the phrase “in the authority’s opinion” in section 8. That creates the opportunity for people who have a different opinion or believe that the authority is perversely exercising an opinion to legally challenge, and that is good, right and proper. If we include “or have had”, the challenge that people can make will be extended to the failure to review previous legislation.

Let me give some examples. I will start with the Common Good Act 1491.

The Convener

Stewart, I am asking you to be very brief, because at this stage, and given my discussions with the clerk, there is a real possibility that we might not get through the stage 2 debate before the end of the committee meeting. If that were so, we would need to seek authority to carry stage 2 forward until after recess. I ask all members to keep their comments as short and pithy as possible.

Stewart Stevenson

The Common Good Act 1491 was affected by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The latter act in particular, which reorganised local government, affected the common good funds. Is there an island differential? Yes, because Comhairle nan Eilean Siar had no common good funds. Therefore there is a differential effect associated with the operation of common good and the acts of 1491, 1947 and 1973.

The 1872 Ballot Act is differential in its effect on the islands and the crofting legislation, starting with the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, is differential in its effect on islands. There is a whole host of things where people could go to court and challenge the authority’s opinion that it should not do something about it. I could come up with a much longer list.

The Convener

Tavish Scott may come in briefly.

Tavish Scott

I have one point to make, given your stricture, convener.

The principle behind amendment 62 is correct, but I am not sure about the language, because there has to be some trigger. I am not clear from Peter Chapman’s opening remarks what the trigger is, but perhaps he can clear that up in his wind-up speech. Otherwise, there are some concerns that we could have everything back on the table—I say that as an islander. There are areas of policy that an amendment like this would rightly deal with and I suggest that, at stage 3, we could have an amendment that refines the principle behind what Peter Chapman is trying to achieve, which I agree with.

Humza Yousaf

Once again, it has been a very insightful discussion. I will speak to both amendments 62 and 64. I understand what Peter Chapman is trying to achieve, but his amendments do not do that at all. The amendments appear to require all the relevant authorities to review all previous policies, services or strategies that it believes may have a significant differential impact on island communities.

I refer members to the wording of section 8 which, as John Mason mentioned, says that a relevant authority must prepare an island communities impact assessment and so on. To come back to Jamie Greene’s point, even if the authority chose not to proceed with an impact assessment, it would have to go through the burdensome process of reviewing all its policies, strategies or services, potentially going back years, decades or even centuries. The authority might not choose to carry out an impact assessment, but it would be quite a burdensome and bureaucratic undertaking.

Jamie Greene

The spirit of the bill is to improve outcomes for islands and improving outcomes is not necessarily predicated on future policy decisions. The ability of authorities to consider decisions that have already been made is absolutely relevant and the bill does not provide for that. At this stage, will the minister commit to revisiting the concept of retrospective assessment at stage 3 so that it can be properly addressed in the bill? That might not be in the way that Mr Chapman is suggesting, but he makes a very important point.

Humza Yousaf

I would return to Stewart Stevenson’s first point, which is that there is nothing preventing local authorities from coming to me or any of my ministerial colleagues in order to look back and review legislation and to gather parliamentary support for a change in policy, services, strategy or guidance. Although I was interested to hear about the 1491 act, the provision is not about legislation; it is about policies, strategies or services and the point is that there is nothing preventing local authorities from revisiting those. There are a number of forums in which local authorities can raise such points, of which the islands strategic group is probably the most prominent.

My feeling, which chimes with that of some other members, is that amendment 62 takes far too much of a blanket approach and that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for local authorities to have to review all their policies, strategies and services.

I understand the spirit of the amendment. I do not believe that there is a need for a retrospective assessment provision, because section 8(2)’s application of the duty to the redevelopment of policies, services and strategies will largely cover it. Further, I remarked earlier on Colin Smyth’s amendment 90 that it contains an interesting proposal in relation to on-going reviews. I believe that that would be a more flexible and perhaps proportionate approach to retrospection.

11:30  

I reaffirm my commitment to consider any issue that is brought to me by a member or a local authority where they believe that there is a detrimental impact on island communities. At the next meeting of the islands strategic group, I will raise the issue once again with the local authorities round the table. I am not at all closed minded to looking back over legislation and reviewing it. I will take the point away and talk to my Cabinet colleagues to see whether there is a conversation to be had on their portfolios in that regard. Given my view on the extremely negative impact of amendments 62 and 64, I ask the member not to press them to a vote but, should they be pressed, I ask the committee not to agree to them.

The Convener

I call Peter Chapman to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 62.

Peter Chapman

I will be very brief, because we have had a huge amount of discussion. I think that the issue is fundamentally important to the bill. Tavish Scott asked what the trigger is. The trigger is the authority’s opinion—if an authority thinks that it is correct to look at something, it can do that. Other folks have said that that should happen, anyway. If it should happen anyway, there should be no problem with amendment 62, because it simply allows that to happen. Will it raise expectations? Yes, but the bill raises expectations right across the gamut of provisions, so I do not take that as a reason not to press my amendment. Therefore, I will press it.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 62 disagreed to.

Amendment 63 not moved.

Amendment 64 moved—[Peter Chapman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 64 disagreed to.

Amendment 65 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 65 disagreed to.

Amendments 66 to 68 not moved.

The Convener

I will suspend the meeting briefly, for a maximum of five minutes. I ask you all to be back promptly and as quickly as you can.

11:34 Meeting suspended.  

11:40 On resuming—  

The Convener

Amendment 69, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 70 and 89.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 69 requires relevant authorities to provide an explanation for not doing an island communities impact assessment, if they have chosen not to do so. Given what has been said about other amendments, some members might argue that the amendment would place an additional burden on authorities. However, if we think about the way in which impact assessments work in practice, the reasons for a decision not to conduct an impact assessment in one area will be very similar to the reasons in another area and, therefore, the amendment would not result in significant additional work for authorities. On its own, the amendment is reasonable and represents good practice; it will also provide useful clarity when it comes to my amendment 89.

Amendment 89 would create an appeals mechanism for island communities impact assessments, which was a committee recommendation at stage 1 that was strongly supported by local authorities. Without recourse to appeal decisions, it is impossible for island communities to have faith in the impact assessment system. An appeals mechanism is particularly important given local authorities’ and communities’ lack of input in the decision whether to conduct an impact assessment in the first place. The Government rejected the proposal on the grounds that the administrative burden would be unreasonable, but I believe that amendment 89 outlines a fair and manageable system. We should be working to empower local authorities and communities through the bill but, as it stands, they do not have sufficient oversight and they have very little input in some areas. We should trust that local authorities and communities would use this power only when necessary.

I move amendment 69.

Stewart Stevenson

Will the member confirm whether it is the intention of amendment 69 that subsequent minor changes to policy, strategy or services would again require an assessment?

Colin Smyth

No, minor changes would not require another assessment.

Peter Chapman

Amendment 70 is very simple and is set out very clearly. The key point is that it places a duty of care on authorities for the people in island communities. It is logical that an authority should put in place steps to mitigate any negative effects stated by an island communities impact assessment. If it does not, it should explain why it has not carried out that process. Put simply, that is what amendment 70 says and does. I will stop there.

Stewart Stevenson

Will the member take a brief intervention?

The Convener

He has stopped.

Peter Chapman

I have stopped.

Stewart Stevenson

I am unclear in legal drafting terms what “island community” means.

The Convener

That was not an intervention.

Stewart Stevenson

I have made my contribution. That is sufficient.

Humza Yousaf

I appreciate what Colin Smyth is attempting to do with amendment 69, and I can see why authorities that consider that a local policy, service or strategy does not meet the test for an impact assessment should make public the reasons for their decision. The amendment has the potential to create accountability to local communities that will ensure a thoughtful screening process. I agree that, if the information remains light touch, the requirement simply to state the information should not be overly burdensome on local authorities. The detail can be set out in guidance, which I have now committed to provide to Parliament in draft. Accordingly, I am happy to support Mr Smyth’s amendment 69, but note that officials will need to look more carefully at its construction and, if necessary, amend it at stage 3. I undertake to advise Mr Smyth if that should be necessary.

11:45  

I cannot support Peter Chapman’s amendment 70. I appreciate what he is trying to do, but cannot see the need to include such a provision in the bill. The island communities impact assessment process is designed to ensure that island interests are considered in the development of policy, services and strategies, and to be open and transparent about the impacts on island communities, including any negative impacts. The amendment goes a step further, and asks all relevant authorities to write to ministers when they have not taken steps to mitigate any negative impacts.

It is not clear what effect the amendment might have beyond the potential for a number of letters to come to me, including from my ministerial colleagues, and I am not sure what that might achieve. That sort of issue would be much better dealt with as part of guidance, which could provide more detail on the content of the impact assessment, having particular regard to looking at how to deal with potential negative impacts on island communities. I am happy to discuss with Peter Chapman the effect that he is trying to achieve, in order to ensure that the matter is appropriately addressed when we develop the guidance. I therefore ask Peter Chapman not to move amendment 70.

Amendment 89 from Colin Smyth creates a process to require a relevant authority to review the reasons why an island communities impact assessment was not prepared. It allows “any person” to request a review and sets out a process and timescale for response. The committee knows that I am not in favour of having a review process on the face of the bill, not least because other similar and successful impact assessment processes, such as the equality impact assessment, do not set out a review process in legislation.

The creation of a review process in this bill will lead to more bureaucracy—that tick-box culture that we want to avoid—and not to the change in culture that we want to see. In this case, the potential number of reviews for all new and revised policies, services and strategies, across all 66 relevant authorities, will be huge, cumbersome and potentially expensive.

Looking briefly at the practical implications, four weeks, as suggested in the amendment, is a reasonable timescale for a response, and Colin Smyth has now limited it to allow one request per review. That is presumably to stop multiple requests on the same topic, but I am not sure how it will work if a new request for a review is based on different grounds or facts. It would surely be unreasonable to refuse a request that was made on different grounds solely for the reason that a request had been received earlier. That distinction is not made in the drafting and I wonder whether that was Colin Smyth’s intention. He may want to comment on that in closing.

Further, the review is open to any person, rather than limited to someone who has a direct interest in the decision not to conduct an impact assessment. Any person in Scotland could request a review of the decision, regardless of whether they are in an island community or affected by the decision, and if they put their request in first, that might be the only review that is allowed. No particular grounds are given for review, such as unreasonableness or procedural unfairness. That is also left entirely open.

As I indicated in my response to the stage 1 report, I give a cast-iron commitment that the consultation on the guidance will cover the matter, and that an appropriate dispute resolution process will be considered as part of that. To give further encouragement to Mr Smyth not to move amendment 89, I suggest as a compromise that I will lodge an amendment at stage 3 to the effect that ministers must evaluate the operation of this part of the act, three years after it comes into force. I will also lodge an amendment to put in place an order-making power that will allow ministers to make regulations with respect to reviews, so that if, after that period of time, the evaluation shows that a review process is required, we can provide for one based on that evidence. I believe that that is a good compromise, and ask Mr Smyth to give it consideration and not to move amendment 89.

Colin Smyth

I believe that amendment 69 stands on its own as good practice, and members appear to agree with that. It also helps when it comes to the aim of amendment 89, which is to create a review process. I will not go through the arguments for that review process, which was a clear recommendation of the committee at stage 1. The minister mentioned that I had changed the amendment to limit the number of reviews to one to reduce the burdens on local authorities. If the concern is now that there may be several applications for a review based on different criteria, I see no reason why guidance could not be published that allows authorities to take into account the different reasons why there might be a review. However, I take on board the point that the minister will lodge amendments on reviewing the section and on additional regulation.

On that basis, I will press amendment 69 but will not, at this stage, move amendment 89. I will reconsider the matter at stage 3, after seeing the additional information that the minister will provide between now and then.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)

Abstention

Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 2, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 69 agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 70 is in the name of Peter Chapman.

Peter Chapman

Given that the minister said that he would look favourably on the proposal, I will not move amendment 70.

Amendment 70 not moved.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

After section 8

Amendment 89 not moved.

Section 9—Compliance with section 7 duty

Amendments 72 and 73 not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

The Convener

Amendment 20, in the name of Tavish Scott, is in a group on its own.

Tavish Scott

This has been an issue for a considerable time, and I am grateful to the Government for providing this legislative vehicle to allow it to be raised. The bill is about the islands, after all, and my contention is that the islands should be in the right place on a map. There are many examples of documents on which the Government has got it wrong, including when I was a minister.

I am grateful for the letter that I had from the permanent secretary, Leslie Evans, on the document that I have here: “A Connected Scotland: Tackling social isolation and loneliness and building stronger communities”. It is an extremely good Government policy but, as colleagues—even those who are sitting on the far side of the table—will astutely notice, the map on its cover has Shetland next to Orkney. I am sitting next to Liam McArthur but we do not sit next to each other geographically. We are lonely at times, but this map is taking it a little too far.

I would like, in future, for Government publications to have Shetland in the right place. Here is one that I found last night. Food Standards Scotland has a stand in Parliament and I came across it as I was walking up to the ministerial corridor last night. It is a pretty awful map of all other areas of Scotland so I give zero out of 10 to Food Standards Scotland. The map puts a line right through Shetland. It puts a tape measure around the minister’s constituency, so he might have his own concerns about that. All in all, it is a pretty dreadful piece of cartography by any standards.

Richard Lyle

Will the member take an intervention?

Tavish Scott

I am happy to.

The Convener

Before you do, Tavish, I note that, amusing as the maps may be, the Official Report cannot record what they show.

Richard Lyle

Is the Food Standards Scotland map not trying to convey the point that the Scottish diet needs to change? Is that not why it is overly obese?

The Convener

That might be amusing as an intervention, but it will not gain you an extra point.

Tavish Scott

I thought that it was worth an extra point in the classic fashion.

The Food Standards Scotland document is called “The Scottish Diet: It needs to change” and my contention is that the maps need to change. In subsection (3) of amendment 20, I ask that maps

“accurately and proportionately”

represent the Shetland Islands’

“geographical location in relation to the rest of Scotland.”

That is what we seek to achieve.

Scotland rightly highlights, for example, two industries that are important to its economic future: oil and gas and seafood. Shetland is central to those two industries, and those industries are so important and economically significant for the Scottish economy and, indeed, the wider economy because of where Shetland is.

I simply ask colleagues to bear in mind that, when scrutinising an islands bill, we deal with the reality of what challenges islands face, particularly on transport. If I were closer to the Moray Firth, or in the Moray Firth, I would not need to spend 12 hours going home on the boat from Aberdeen overnight; instead, it would be an hour from Invergordon in the Highlands.

I contend that our maps should be accurate. I am very grateful to all the geography teachers and various others in my constituency who have been in touch to say, “Thank goodness—at last this is going to be addressed.”

I hope that the Government will accept the argument for one other reason: it will not cost a penny. The change would simply be to ensure that future Government publications and documents reflect the reality of Scotland’s geography rather than making it fit neatly on an A4 sheet of paper.

I move amendment 20.

Stewart Stevenson

I have a few minor points about the drafting of amendment 20. Section 20(3) ends with the term “rest of Scotland”. Given that Lerwick is closer to Bergen than it is to Edinburgh, the amendment should be drawn more broadly, because you would equally want a map to show the correct relationship between Shetland and the coast of Norway.

Similarly—this is a minor and geeky point—the two references to “maps” should say “maps and charts”. Those are different things, although it is extremely unlikely that a chart would misrepresent the issue, because charts are used for navigation purposes.

The real point, which is important, is that—as I guess that Liam McArthur and others would readily acknowledge—the issue extends beyond Shetland. We did a computer model for something 45 years ago, which required mapping information. When we looked at the model’s outputs, it was clear that there was something wrong with the model. It turned out that the agency in London that had mapped the locations of bank branches had used a map that had Shetland in the Moray Firth, which totally threw the model. Fortunately, it was such a gross distortion that the mistake was obvious; it is when a distortion is more subtle and not so obvious that things become more serious.

The amendment’s underlying aim is an important one, but I am a bit dubious about whether the amendment as constructed fully meets it.

John Mason

I am very sympathetic towards amendment 20. Despite the situation for Orkney and the Western isles, it is Shetland that suffers. People want to keep maps fairly big or small, but putting in Shetland changes the scale that they can use.

I am enthusiastic about the amendment. I do not know whether it uses the right wording and we will probably hear from the minister about whether that is how it should be put.

I suspect that there might be a cost were the amendment to be agreed to, even if we did not change previous documentation, but I would want to be guided on that.

To be fair, one of my colleagues was extremely unhappy when the BBC used the weather map with the whole of Scotland reduced in size, and a lot of us supported him in that. Tavish Scott makes a valid point. Something needs to happen, whether in this legislation or elsewhere.

Fulton MacGregor

My point is practically the same as John Mason’s point. I have a lot of sympathy with amendment 20, too. There have always been issues with the representation of Scotland, whether on BBC maps or on stuff documented in the past. Even in the world as a whole, there have always been issues in not showing the true size of some countries, including overestimating their size.

I wonder whether Tavish Scott would consider working with the minister on an amendment at stage 3 because, at this point, I do not know whether it is totally clear what the effects of amendment 20 would be. It might limit public bodies in their work, but I do not know exactly in what way—I would need to look into the issue a bit more.

12:00  

Peter Chapman

I am really sympathetic to Tavish Scott’s point, but—it is a big “but”—I am not sure whether the amendment is relevant to the bill. I do not agree with it in any case. I have been contacted by map specialists in my constituency, who have advised me that the amendment would be inappropriate.

The basic point is that it would reduce the scale of any map by about 40 per cent, because a whole chunk of sea would need to be represented. That is an important point, because we need to have maps that show as much detail as possible. The practice of putting the islands of countries in boxes on maps is well recognised; it has been done by cartographers for centuries. I feel that the loss of detail in any map that was produced under this system would be very counterproductive, so I will vote against the amendment.

Richard Lyle

I am sympathetic to what Tavish Scott says, and I take his point about Scotland being misrepresented in a brochure. It annoys me also when the BBC does not show Scotland correctly. I take the point that Fulton MacGregor has made; maybe Mr Scott should consider discussing his amendment with the Government. However, if he presses amendment 20, I will support it.

Jamie Greene

Nobody puts Shetland in a box. [Laughter.] Clearly it is a fair point, and Mr Scott made his point valiantly in committee today.

There is a technical matter in that if all publications—all maps and charts that were published by anybody, ever—had to use the proportion and scale that the amendment’s wording suggest, that would prove quite difficult. I have great sympathy with the prospect of giving Shetland its due place on the map, but I am not sure that amendment 20 is the way to do that. I support the principle and the ethos, but perhaps not the wording.

Gail Ross

I, too, support the principle. Can the minister give us tangible examples of where the practice that the amendment proposes is already happening and tell us whether there are plans to move on with that without it being in the legislation?

Liam McArthur

I should make it clear that there is a legitimate concept of a “Shetland box”, but it relates to fisheries and involves some fairly exclusive rights in relation to access to those fisheries. I do not think for a moment that Tavish Scott is arguing against that concept.

It is fair to say that the map problem has affected Shetland more than it has Orkney, but Orkney has not been left untouched by it. On a number of occasions we have found ourselves bundled into a box and stuck in the Moray Firth. The concern that arises is more than a presentational or superficial one. Over time that practice gives rise to a misconception about our islands. Some of the issues that we are wrestling with as part of this bill, and about which we are seeing helpful amendments being brought forward, are not made any easier to resolve by the misconception that the islands are a good deal closer to the mainland than is actually the case. Therefore I strongly support Tavish Scott’s amendment. If it needs to be revised ahead of stage 3, I am sure that the minister will work constructively with Tavish on that.

There is an important point that although the amendment refers to the “Shetland mapping requirement”, it needs to encompass concerns that have been raised—although less often—by constituents in Orkney.

The Convener

I, too, thank Colin Smyth, John Finnie and Mike Rumbles for listening to the debate.

Humza Yousaf

I will pick up on Liam McArthur’s point that there may be a temptation to think about this issue flippantly. That should absolutely not happen, because it is a serious issue. Putting myself in the shoes of Tavish Scott or any of his constituents, I certainly would not like to see map after map misrepresenting where Glasgow or Glasgow Pollok is in Scotland. I would not stand for that, and I would be pretty miffed about it. I absolutely respect the spirit of the amendment and I thank Tavish Scott for bringing it to the committee to discuss.

He described the issue that arose around the depiction of Scotland—and Shetland, in particular—in a recent Government publication. I agree with him that the depiction was not a good one and that the portrayal of Shetland was misguided and, indeed, unfortunate. As Tavish Scott has already said, he wrote to the permanent secretary about the publication in question. I hope that he found her response useful. She indicated her regret at any offence that had been caused, and I echo her comments whole-heartedly. In her letter, the permanent secretary set out that she had taken steps to ensure that there would be no repeat of that in future Scottish Government publications. A standing instruction to our publishing contractor was prepared to ensure that images of Scotland in future publications should seek to portray accurately the geographical location of all Scotland’s islands—not just Shetland.

To reinforce that further, following stage 2, I will be happy to write to all Scottish public authorities, highlighting the specific issue and other issues that Mr Scott has raised, to encourage them to follow the Scottish Government’s lead on the matter, to contact their contractors and to avoid any incorrect or inaccurate depiction of the Shetland islands or, indeed, any of our island communities. I would also be willing to discuss with Mr Scott, or any other members who represent island communities who have concerns on that issue, other practical ways in which we can reinforce that message.

A couple of members have touched on amendment 20’s wording and technical drafting. Its current scope, which is

“When publishing in any form a document that includes a map of Scotland”,

is very wide, and my concern is that it provides little flexibility. As the member acknowledged in his own letter to the permanent secretary,

“There can be ‘graphic design difficulties’ in presenting an accurate depiction of Shetland’s geography, especially depending on the type and detail of the map that is being produced.”

For me, the way in which amendment 20 is drafted perhaps does not give any leeway, in that it always requires an accurate representation, even in instances where it could be helpful for readers of the map for a different format to be used.

There may be other unintended consequences if Mr Scott’s amendment were to apply across the whole of the public sector. We cannot know which maps are in use and how they portray Scotland. Indeed, it could be argued that it would be inequitable for such a strategy requirement to apply solely to Shetland and not to other islands, although I understand why Mr Scott would focus on his constituency.

I suggest that perhaps the right approach to the matter is to change practice and behaviour in the way that I have described and for us to work with Mr Scott to see what more we can do, other than my writing to Scottish public authorities. While we are looking at changes in practice and behaviour we might also look at them in guidance. We can do that by agreement rather than through what I view as being a largely unenforceable provision in the legislation.

I am also told that the amendment might be outwith competence, as conferring such a function on all Scottish public authorities in the way that it does might go beyond devolved competence.

Notwithstanding all that, I feel that it is a very worthwhile issue to have raised in this forum and to have brought to the committee. Although I have an enormous amount of sympathy for and agreement with Mr Scott’s amendment, I ask him to withdraw it and have a discussion with me and Government officials to see how we can advance the spirit of the amendment in a way that is practically enforceable.

Tavish Scott

I am grateful to colleagues from across the committee for their thoughts on this matter. I accept the charge that the amendment is not technically perfect and that the drafting may or may not have some deficiencies. I take the minister’s point on that as well. I would be happy to work with Government officials to get the drafting right.

I do want to see something in law on this, for the very reason that the minister gave in his opening remarks about other public authorities. He has offered—and I am very grateful for this, as I am sure that people who live on islands genuinely will be—to write to public authorities across Scotland and to encourage them to “follow the Government’s lead”. I want to do more than encourage them; I want to make them do that. However, in that context, I take his point about the language in my amendment, which is about publishing a document “in any form”. That is a fair criticism of the drafting, and I am happy to look at wording that is more—

Stewart Stevenson

Is the member happy to take an intervention?

Tavish Scott

Yes, certainly.

Stewart Stevenson

Is one of the important questions not that if Government does not get this right, why should private industry do so?

Tavish Scott

Indeed—that is entirely correct. I totally accept that the Government will get the requirement right in the future, but I want us to ensure that other public authorities do so as well. Food Standards Scotland may be a bad example, but it is certainly one example of where that is not the case at the moment.

I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment so that I can work with the minister’s team on getting the correct technical drafting for stage 3.

Amendment 20, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 90 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 90 disagreed to.

Section 10—Guidance about section 7 duty

Amendments 21 and 22 moved—[Gail Ross]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 23 is in the name of Tavish Scott.

Tavish Scott

Given the minister’s remarks, I will not move the amendment, with a view to resubmitting it at stage 3.

Amendment 23 not moved.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

Section 12—Preparation of island communities impact assessment by Ministers

Amendments 74 to 77 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 78, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 79 and 24.

Jamie Greene

Section 12(3) sets out what must be covered in the island communities impact assessments that are prepared by ministers. For example, they must

“describe the likely significantly different effect of ... legislation”

that comes before Parliament and, more important, they must

“assess the extent to which ... legislation can be developed ... to improve or mitigate ... the outcomes resulting from the legislation.”

Amendment 78 simply adds a third requirement, for ministers to

“set out the financial implications of steps taken under this subsection to mitigate, for island communities, the outcomes resulting from the legislation.”

I think that the addition is an important one, because when ministers undertake their impact assessments, they should not only describe how they can mitigate the consequences of legislation but give Parliament an understanding of the financial implications of that mitigation, for very obvious reasons. I have nothing further to say on the matter.

I move amendment 78.

Peter Chapman

I, too, will be brief. Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that an appeals mechanism for island communities impact assessments is put in place. If communities feel that they are being significantly impacted on by a piece of legislation, there should be a due process for appealing that.

Liam McArthur

First of all, I welcome the intention behind the amendments in the name of Jamie Greene and Peter Chapman.

With regard to amendment 24, in my name, colleagues will recall that one of the real anxieties that was raised about this bill at stage 1—and which has been raised again at stage 2—is that it raises expectations. There is a risk that it will fail to deliver, particularly with regard to the concept of island proofing.

12:15  

I will not rehearse the arguments about how assessments of the impact of policy or legislative proposals on island communities should be made and used to shape changes to those proposals. However, I have always felt that the best way to demonstrate the benefit that island proofing can and should have is to apply it to existing examples that we all accept take little, if any, account of the needs of islands communities. I appreciate that that cannot be open ended, as Government or, indeed, Parliament cannot be expected to trawl through every piece of legislation that is on the statute book—we touched on that earlier. However, we must ensure that the bill offers a means to redress the most damaging examples of a one-size-fits-all approach.

An illustration that I have used is how building regulations lock in fuel poverty for the future in places such as Orkney—the minister and Kevin Stewart will be very familiar with that. Likewise, I have had discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and her officials about the rules on direct payments and the regulation of care workers, which could result in services not being available to some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency in the not-too-distant future. Those cases would not be addressed by the bill as it stands, which is a missed opportunity and risks the bill failing to meet the needs and expectations of island communities.

Whether through amendment 24 or some other means, we need to find a way to make sure that the bill allows those past mistakes to be corrected and avoids future mistakes.

Richard Lyle

Will the member take an intervention?

The Convener

If you are happy to take the intervention, Mr McArthur, you may do so.

Liam McArthur

Yes.

Richard Lyle

How far back would we ask the authorities to go? I do not take away from your point, but earlier on, Stewart Stevenson mentioned the year 1491—I do not think we need to go back as far as that.

Liam McArthur

That is perhaps a misdirection. The issue is not the distance back but the impact that a policy is having. The point that Tavish Scott rightly made in relation to earlier amendments was that the issue is the trigger and mechanism that would allow that assessment to happen. I fully accept that the commitment cannot be open ended, but the bill needs something to open the possibility for existing policy and legislation to be looked at. It does not matter whether that would be from the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s or the 2000s; the significance of the impact that that legislation or policy is having on island communities is what is important, constrained only by the trigger or mechanism.

Stewart Stevenson

I will speak to Liam McArthur’s amendment 24. His remarks slightly puzzle me. The phrasing of the amendment is that it would apply to acts of the Scottish Parliament and subordinate legislation, so therefore I do not think that there would be much legislation from the 1970s or 1980s—there might be something before 1707, of course. My point is that approximately 8,000 pieces of secondary legislation have been passed by this Parliament since 1999. The numbers in the first two years were relatively low, not surprisingly: 124 and 181. After that, the number in the highest year is 582 and the number in the lowest is 360. Even in the current year, we have already passed 109 pieces of secondary legislation, and we are still in March.

Even though it is clear from what Liam McArthur has said that he expects action to relate to only a small proportion of those instruments, it is necessary to prepare and publish a retrospective assessment of those—in other words, we would need to look at the 8,000 before we knew the six that we would need to address.

I am not trying to cut the feet from the principle of what is being said. However, the amendment leads us back to the territory of doing too much.

For clarity, I should say that I suspect that the Common Good Act 1491 would not be caught by the amendment, as legislation.gov.uk describes acts before 1707 as being of “the Old Scottish Parliament” which probably excludes them.

Humza Yousaf

I will speak first to Jamie Greene’s amendment 78. I know that, throughout the process, he has been keen to understand the financial implications that might arise from island community impact assessments and the bill as a whole. As I have said, the impact assessment process is designed to bring into the open issues to do with the effects of legislation—including any negative impacts—on our island communities. However, the assessment will not be the end of the matter. Ministers will have to take a view on what to do about such a negative impact and potentially find a different way of achieving the goal of the proposed legislation. That might involve changing the drafting of a bill before it is introduced or allowing for a variation for the islands in its provisions. It will be expected of the Scottish ministers that they will seek to prevent any negative impact that is identified in such an assessment from arising.

Under standing orders, financial memorandums are built into the bill process, and that would be the best place for such information to be set out, alongside any other financial implications. I am happy to commit to looking at how the guidance can make that clearer for future legislation. For that reason, I do not believe that amendment 78 is necessary, and I ask Jamie Greene to withdraw it. If he presses it, I ask other members not to support it.

Peter Chapman’s amendment 79 suggests an appeals process for section 12, but we need to look closely at the practical implications of how it might operate. The drafting of amendment 79 is such that there is a lack of clarity on its effect and on what might be appealed. As drafted, the provisions of the amendment would apply when ministers were already preparing an impact assessment, so they would not apply to a decision on whether to prepare an assessment. What else might be appealed? I do not think that it should be possible to make an appeal against the decision to legislate or in the context of an impact assessment.

In addition, amendment 79 is not clear on how “an island community”—as opposed to individual members of that community or a community body—could appeal. Stewart Stevenson has previously made that point. Although it proposes a regulation-making power and procedure, I am not clear whether, as part of that, it could be specified who would decide to appeal. In short, the terms of amendment 79 could create a cumbersome process that could hold up legislation, including, for example, emergency bills.

More fundamentally, I do not think that an appeal is necessary. All Government legislation comes before the Scottish Parliament—it is the job of MSPs to scrutinise such legislation—so I do not think that amendment 79 is required. Therefore, I ask Peter Chapman not to move it. If it is put to the vote, I ask other members to reject it.

Liam McArthur’s amendment 24 would require the Scottish ministers to

“prepare and publish a retrospective island communities impact assessment in relation to existing legislation and national strategies which have an effect on all island communities which is significantly different from their effect on other communities”.

I go back to Stewart Stevenson’s point. As with Peter Chapman’s previous amendments, the effect would be that we would have to review all legislation and national strategies, regardless of whether we decided that a retrospective island impact assessment was needed. Stewart Stevenson has already given us some of the secondary legislation figures. National strategies would have to be reviewed, too. I agree that acts such as the 1491 act that Stewart Stevenson mentioned would not be included, because the amendment relates specifically to Scottish Parliament legislation—in other words, legislation from 1999 onwards. However, if national strategies were included, the figure would run into the tens of thousands.

Liam McArthur

I appreciate the minister’s comments and those that Stewart Stevenson made earlier. That is why I reiterated the need to find a mechanism that was not open ended. I cited two obvious examples of where a retrospective application of the bill’s provisions is necessary. I and my local council have had on-going engagement with the Government about how the provisions in the areas that I mentioned are not working in an island context. I have had a sympathetic hearing, but there has not been a willingness to carry out an independent impact assessment.

I appreciate that, in relation to the building regulations and in terms of direct payments to and regulation of care workers, those provisions are generally working fairly well in other parts of the country. Therefore, in that balance between the policy working, by and large, in achieving its objectives, and the interests of island communities when the circumstances mean that the national approach is chafing against the achievement of the Government’s objectives, there is not currently a mechanism for applying pressure to either the Government or public bodies. That mechanism is what I am seeking to achieve, so—

The Convener

Liam—

Liam McArthur

—if the Government can come forward with an amendment at stage 3 that provides a mechanism, I would be happy to withdraw this amendment and support that one.

The Convener

That was quite a long intervention. I know that it was a salient point, but an intervention should, to my mind, be as short and pithy as possible.

Humza Yousaf

Regardless of the length of the intervention, I think that Liam McArthur made his point very well. I hope that he understands where I am coming from. I could make similar remarks to those that Stewart Stevenson made on the difficulty that we would have with this amendment if it were moved.

Let me look at ways that we can improve the bill in the way that Liam McArthur would like us to do. I would be happy to speak to Liam McArthur in the lead-up to stage 3 about various options that we could consider. Let me throw in that they might be non-legislative options, but let us have a consideration of all the options that might be developed. I am sure that if we collaborate on this issue, between us we can come to an agreement on the way forward. I ask Mr McArthur, on the basis of what he has said, not to move amendment 24. We can have a conversation about how we get to where he wishes to get to.

Jamie Greene

I do not have much to add to the discussion, other than to say that the minister said that he would improve guidance, but I feel that that commitment is not strong enough. I see no harm in my request that a requirement to set out the financial implications of those impact assessments be included in the bill. I will press amendment 78.

The Convener

I note for the Official Report that Mike Rumbles has had to leave the meeting and that the meeting will continue.

The question is, that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 0. I am therefore required to use my casting vote. I have always used my casting vote in the same way that I voted originally. That means that the result is: For 6, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Richard Lyle

On a point of order, convener, you said that there were six votes for and four against.

The Convener

Sorry. The result is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0. That was my mistake.

Stewart Stevenson

Just for the record, I think that it is five votes to five, but you have cast your vote in favour.

The Convener

It is five votes to five. Thank you. We have not come across this situation before—rather, I have not. The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 0. With my casting vote, the amendment is agreed to.

Amendment 78 agreed to.

Amendment 79 not moved.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

After section 12

Amendment 24 not moved.

Amendment 80 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 80 disagreed to.

Amendment 81 moved—[Colin Smyth].

12:30  

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 81 disagreed to.

Section 13 agreed to.

Section 14—Number of councillors in wards with inhabited islands

The Convener

Amendment 82, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendment 6.

Colin Smyth

I lodged amendment 82 because I was concerned that the bill’s wording was somewhat ambiguous and potentially restrictive. The use of the word “mainly” in section 14 means that we could, in effect, have a situation in which a ward in Orkney would have to cover the majority of an island if it wished to have one or two members. That is significantly restrictive, and it could result in real difficulties.

Since amendment 82 was lodged, the minister has lodged amendment 6, which clarifies the point and is very welcome. When the minister talks to his amendment, I ask him to assure us that every ward in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles will be covered by a provision that would allow them to have one or two members, even if they are wholly contained within an island but do not form the majority of the island. That is my only comment. I welcome amendment 6.

I move amendment 82.

Humza Yousaf

Although I am keen to accept amendments that will improve the bill, I do not think that Colin Smyth’s amendment 82 is necessary. The bill, as drafted, works. Amending section 14 in the way that is proposed would not have the effect that Mr Smyth is necessarily seeking. If the reason is to extend one or two-member wards to non-island wards, the policy behind the bill, which followed on from the consultation, is to allow for one or two-member wards that contain inhabited islands; it is not the policy to expand one or two-member wards to cover other areas.

There has been a consultation on electoral reform that proposed the creation of wards of two to five members. Any legislation that follows on from that consultation will be the most appropriate vehicle to take forward that policy intention. On that basis, I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 82, and I ask members to vote against it if it is pressed.

On amendment 6, I can give Colin Smyth the assurance that he seeks. The stage 1 committee report recommended that the Government should follow the suggestion of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland and amend section 14 of the bill by changing the words “wholly or mainly” to “wholly or partly” to increase the flexibility in what the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland can propose in order to, as the committee put it, “better balance a ward”. That is what amendment 6 does.

The Convener

I invite Colin Smyth to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 82.

Colin Smyth

To be clear, amendment 82 does not seek to extend the use of one or two-member wards to the mainland. Although I have some sympathy for that idea, it is not the aim of the Islands (Scotland) Bill, and it is certainly not the aim of amendment 82. Amendment 82 aims to avoid a situation in which a ward on an island is restricted because it does not cover the island “wholly or mainly”. However, amendment 6 deals with that concern, so I will not press amendment 82.

Amendment 82, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 6 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

After section 15

The Convener

Amendment 25, in the name of Liam McArthur, is the only amendment in the group.

Liam McArthur

Convener, I noted your earlier chastisement that you had heard enough from me today, so I will be as brief as I can.

As well as addressing problems relating to a one-size-fits-all approach to legislation and policy, one of the bill’s objectives is to put in place safeguards against future attempts at centralisation. Those are always portrayed as delivering cost savings, greater efficiencies and improvements to the service to the public. In truth, they almost invariably involve stripping away powers and decision making from our island and rural communities. In this session of Parliament alone, we have seen attempts to centralise economic development through the abolition of Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s board and proposals to merge health boards that could have resulted in island boards being subsumed into larger mainland bodies.

Closer integration and more efficient working are objectives that we would all support, but we must recognise that the needs and interests of island communities will never be properly heard or prioritised when they are not the laser focus of those who are responsible for taking decisions.

Amendment 25 seeks to put in place safeguards against such centralisation in the context of island health boards and local authorities without their express consent.

I move amendment 25.

The Convener

Thank you, Liam, but you misrepresented me—I never said that I had heard enough from you.

Stewart Stevenson

The proposed new section that would be inserted after section 15 would prevent alteration of boundary functions or powers, which would, of course, prevent the addition of functions or powers as well as their subtraction. I do not believe that that is what Liam McArthur was seeking to do.

There is a more fundamental problem. If we look at the interests of Argyllshire, for example, where there are islands but a very substantial mainland, it might well be that the mainland parts determine what decisions are taken rather than the islands. The fundamental point is the question of who is responsible for providing health services under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. What we now have is a situation in which decisions are being taken by local authorities while the health boards carry the responsibility. That is an unhealthy position to be in. There could be a permanent inability of the health board to respond to changing needs appropriately. I am not saying that that would happen but, in legislative terms, that possibility would be opened up.

I would be more supportive of amendment 25 if I saw co-decision making, whereby the responsibilities would be carried by local authorities and health boards, or other ways of dealing with the problem. I recognise that a problem exists and I understand why Liam McArthur has lodged amendment 25, but I do not think that it is the right way of delivering better health services for the islands.

Humza Yousaf

I enjoyed listening to what Liam McArthur had to say. It gave me a bit more of an idea of the intent behind his amendment, but I still have some severe reservations.

Whenever change is considered, whether it be to local government functions and powers or health board functions and powers, or indeed those of other bodies that have a local delivery role to fulfil, it must be properly informed, not least through a full consultation, and—as Liam McArthur knows from his experience in the Parliament—it must be achieved on as consensual a basis as possible.

In seeking to take forward the bill and its aim of providing for the unique circumstances of our islands and island communities, I am mindful of the key role that the relevant local and health authorities will play. There is a fine balance to be struck in taking forward the proposals in a way that does not have an unhelpful impact on powers that rightfully belong to other portfolios or institutions or create a substantive difference in the powers that those agencies have in a way that could potentially create an uneven playing field.

I am conscious, too, of the need to future proof the legislation to ensure that it does not create unhelpful unintended consequences in the long term. In that context, I know that there is considerable satisfaction with the current provisions and that there is no clamour from any current island community for substantive change to current local authority or health board boundaries. However unlikely it seems now, that might change. Therefore, it would be wrong for any council to have a power of veto in relation to any proposal by the Scottish ministers to change the powers, functions or boundaries of any local authority.

By extension, that would apply to giving island local authorities such a power. My concern is that, in effect, such a power would deprive the Parliament of its rightful opportunity to consider and agree to such proposals. It would even create the potential for those local authorities to resist the will of local communities and local residents, if a situation should arise in which they want change and the current formation of the local authority does not. It would be an extraordinarily wide power.

Mr McArthur rightly draws our attention to the need to ensure that central Government should not unhelpfully interfere in island authority powers and functions if island communities did not agree with any proposed change. I offer him the reassurance that there are no current plans for any changes to the boundaries of health boards or local authorities. As the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport said on the publication of our health and social care delivery plan in December 2016:

“We want more services and more care delivered closer to home. And when someone does require specialist care in hospital we want it to be delivered in a centre of real expertise that is underpinned by our unswerving commitment to patient safety.

And while delivering these changes will require reforms to how boards work, and work with each other in partnership across disciplines and boundaries, we do not currently envisage our patient-facing boards being reduced in number.”

Amendment 25 could have unanticipated effects, as it would blur governance arrangements and lines of responsibility between local authorities, health boards and the Scottish Government.

I fully understand that Scotland’s islands are distinct communities and that the respective local authorities and health boards are experienced in serving those populations. During my many visits over the past 22 months, I witnessed at first hand the delivery of excellent local services that the staff in the islands should be rightly proud of.

The unique nature of the islands is the reason why the Scottish Government introduced the islands bill in the first place, and the bill includes provisions on the island proofing of new and revised Government legislation. That duty provides further protection against the situation that Mr McArthur fears. I hope that that provides the reassurances that he needs. If in future any Scottish Government decides to undertake a review of local government boundaries or health boards, or proposes a change to the functions and powers of local authorities, the Scottish Government would have a duty to

“have regard to island communities”.

The Convener

I am tactfully asking you to bring your remarks to a logical conclusion. Would you conclude briefly, please, so that Liam McArthur has the chance to respond?

Humza Yousaf

I will. A local authority power of veto over the Scottish ministers and potentially also island communities would be unhelpful. As a Government, we must be able to put forward ideas and proposals for change, and it must be for the Parliament to discuss and debate those.

I therefore urge Mr McArthur to consider withdrawing amendment 25. As with all previous amendments, I am happy to have a discussion with him about a variety of options for how we can give effect to the spirit of his amendment.

Liam McArthur

I thank Stewart Stevenson and the minister for their comments.

In response, I will make a small number of observations. On Stewart Stevenson’s suggestion that the amendment limits the potential addition of powers, it is important to point out that the proposal in amendment 25 applies where the local authority does not consent. Where there is consent, the proposals from the Scottish ministers could go forward.

I accept the point that Stewart Stevenson made about co-decision making within islands. It happens to an extent, but it should happen more.

Co-operation between island authorities and health boards and mainland counterparts happens already, as we discussed in relation to earlier amendments. I do not see amendment 25 as cutting across that. I would expect co-operation to happen more, not least given the minister’s points about health specialisms and the requirement for patients to travel to centres to receive treatment.

I do not think that amendment 25 cuts across the responsibilities of others, and I believe that it is future proofed, but if Parliament wishes to come back in due course and amend the legislation, for whatever reason, it would be free to do so. As I understand it, the parliamentary boundaries are set out in and protected under legislation. Amendment 25 reflects a similar approach in relation to island authorities and health boards. Therefore, although I respect the comments of Stewart Stevenson and the minister, I will press amendment 25.

12:45  

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 disagreed to.

Amendment 26 not moved.

Section 16—Meaning of “development activity”

The Convener

Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 8, 9 and 83 to 85. I ask the minister to move amendment 7 and to speak, briefly, to the other amendments in the group.

Humza Yousaf

I got the inference.

In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should lodge an amendment to clarify that dredging, as referred to in the bill, means the excavation activity and not fishing by dredge. Amendments 7 to 9 seek to achieve that and I hope that members will support them.

Amendment 8 is a minor technical amendment. Section 16(2) sets out the exceptions to the meaning of development activity in the bill and explicitly excludes activities relating to the reserved areas of oil and gas, defence and pollution from the definition of development activity. Therefore, those activities cannot be subject to the requirement of licence under regulation under section 18 of the bill.

I support Stewart Stevenson’s amendment 83. It relates to an issue that he raised during the committee evidence session on 8 November 2017. It is a technical issue, and I will leave Mr Stevenson to describe how the amendment improves the bill.

I confess that I am still struggling to understand the purpose of amendment 84 from Peter Chapman, and I will listen carefully to what he has to say. The amendment removes text from section 19(2)(d) of the bill relating to exceptions arising from the Orkney County Council Act 1974 and the Zetland County Council Act 1974. Section 19 is designed to exempt existing development activity from a new licensing regime. I suspect that the effect of amendment 84 might be to make it impossible for the new licensing regime and the 1974 acts to run together at all, even for future developments. That is not the position of the Government—we want the interaction with the 1974 acts regimes to be considered closely when the coverage, operation and exemptions of the new scheme are being consulted on and implemented under section 18. If it is a technical issue, I will be happy to look at it and see how we can give effect to it. Therefore, I ask Peter Chapman not to move amendment 84.

Amendment 85 from Colin Smyth relates to an issue that has arisen in Orkney. I understand that the council cannot find a partner to allow for delegation of the marine licensing planning functions. I will listen to the member carefully, but I am minded to support the principle behind the amendment. I am not sure that the amendment as currently drafted addresses the issue in the best possible way. I have a couple of concerns about the technicalities, about which I will not go into detail here. I would prefer Colin Smyth not to move his amendment and I give a commitment to liaise with him and come back with an appropriate amendment at stage 3, because I understand the spirit of what he is trying to do.

I move amendment 7.

Stewart Stevenson

I believe that amendment 83 is essentially a technical change that relates to something that I brought up at stage 1. I will give an example. We require there to be an island wholly inside a Scottish island marine area, but we might, for example, have a marine protected area adjacent to that island that it would not be reasonable to include within the licence area. That would remove the opportunity to have the island wholly inside the licence area. Amendment 83 simply says “is adjacent to” an island, which reflects what we are trying to do.

The Convener

I call Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 84 and the other amendments in the group.

Peter Chapman

I hope that I can explain what I am trying to achieve, and that my amendment is worded correctly, although I am beginning to wonder, given the minister’s comments. The amendment is a technical one. I believe that it would protect the existing powers to grant work licences under the existing Orkney County Council Act 1974 and the Zetland County Council Act 1974.

We welcome the new powers for marine licensing that the bill gives the island authorities, but we need an assurance that if a licence is granted after the area is designated as an island licensing area, existing powers will be exempt.

That is what I am aiming for. Whether I have managed to achieve it, I now hae ma doots, as they say.

Tavish Scott

I am grateful to Mr Chapman for taking an intervention. In the context of the remarks that he made, has he checked the amendment with the island authorities, which would be in a position to confirm or deny its effect?

Peter Chapman

I have not.

Stewart Stevenson

The bill as amended would say, “the person, was designated as an island licensing area”.

I am just not sure that that means very much, regardless of the intention behind the amendment.

Peter Chapman

Point taken.

The Convener

I will leave that hanging for the moment. You can decide whether to move your amendment, Mr Chapman.

I invite Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 85.

Colin Smyth

At present, local authorities require a delegate partner to carry out delegated functions for regional marine planning on behalf of ministers. Finding a delegate partner can prove difficult for some local authorities. As the minister said, Orkney Islands Council has highlighted that issue. The amendment would provide the flexibility to allow local authorities to have sole delegate authority if they can demonstrate difficulty fulfilling their obligations in relation to a delegate partner. When Orkney Islands Council consulted stakeholders, the feedback that it received was that the overwhelming majority of stakeholders had no desire to be a delegate partner. I take on board what the minister said about the spirit of the amendment and his suggestion to look at the wording for stage 3. At this point, I will not move the amendment, given the assurances that the minister gave me about working on the wording for stage 3.

The Convener

Just to prove a point, I will bring in Liam McArthur, because I have not heard enough from him.

Liam McArthur

I very much welcome Colin Smyth’s amendment and the assurance from the minister. There is scope for reaching an agreement that achieves the objectives that Orkney Islands Council legitimately seeks to achieve, which I hope will be relatively straightforward.

The Convener

I ask the minister to wind up.

Humza Yousaf

I am not convinced by Peter Chapman’s explanation of what he is trying to achieve with amendment 84. I am not sure that he is necessarily convinced by it, either. I do not mean that in a disparaging way at all; I just mean that the technical drafting can be difficult—I accept that. If he does not move his amendment, we will work together to see whether we can get to a position that gives him the reassurance that he needs.

I am happy to support amendment 85 from Colin Smyth, but I urge him not to move it so that we can work out the kinks. We will draft something together to bring forward at stage 3.

I support Stewart Stevenson’s amendment 83 to fix an issue in the definition of a Scottish island marine area.

I ask members to support amendment 7 in my name.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendments 8 and 9 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17 agreed to.

Section 18—Scottish island marine area licence

Amendment 83 moved—[Stewart Stevenson]—and agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Section 19—Exception from requirement for licence

Amendment 84 not moved.

Section 19 agreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

After section 20

Amendment 85 not moved.

Section 21—Regulations

Amendments 86 and 27 not moved.

Section 21 agreed to.

Section 22 agreed to.

After section 22

The Convener

Amendment 87, in the name of Jamie Greene, is in a group on its own.

Jamie Greene

Richard Lyle is waving at me furiously but I am not sure what he is trying to say. I think that he is saying that I should hurry up and keep it short and sweet, so I will. We are all moulding into our seats after five hours.

The aim of amendment 87 is to provide for a review of the act. The amendment provides that the minister should lay before Parliament

“a report on the impact and effectiveness of this Act.”

It is a simple ask. If members are unhappy with the time period and think that one year is too aggressive or too soon, I will take that on board. I will move the amendment, and any member or the minister can change the period as they see fit. The Parliament can debate the period at stage 3. That is a reasonable compromise. I would like to see the inclusion of a review in the bill.

I move amendment 87.

Richard Lyle

I accept the proposal by Jamie Greene and I am sure that everyone else accepts it, too. It is a reasonable ask.

The Convener

I am not sure that it is in your gift to do that. You might feel that you are in a position to speak for the whole committee and for the minister. He may have different opinions.

John Finnie

While I have no problem with reviewing legislation, the time period is ridiculously short. The work to produce the review would have to commence before the year had concluded.

I will not be supporting the amendment.

Humza Yousaf

I confirm that, as enthusiastic as Dick Lyle was, his is slightly different to my opinion, but only over the timing. The spirit of amendment 87 is welcome, and we should never fear post-legislative scrutiny. It is, of course, possible to have post-legislative scrutiny without having a section in the bill.

The reason why I think that one year from royal assent is not appropriate is because one year assumes that all parts and sections of the act will have come into effect by that point. That is not the case. There may be parts that take more than a year to come into effect. Our national islands plan, for example, will probably only just have come into being. The island-proofing duty is likely to have been in force for only a short time, and so on.

I doubt that we will have much meaningful information in the space of a year. I am happy to listen to a call to place a provision in the bill requiring ministers to conduct a review of the act. Given what I have said about timing, our thinking is that a review about four years after commencement may well provide more useful information. That would be three years into the substantive operation of the act and the islands plan.

I ask the member not to press amendment 87 but to work with us to introduce an amendment at stage 3, setting out a more appropriate timescale for the review.

Jamie Greene

I thank the members who have contributed. If the minister has given a commitment to consider at stage 3 the amendment as currently worded but with a different time period, it would be suitable to bring an amendment back at that stage, rather than press amendment 87 today.

Amendment 87, by agreement, withdrawn.

Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.

Long title

Amendment 88 not moved.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration of the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

It has been a marathon session for the committee. I thank everyone for their input at all stages. Members should note that the bill will now be reprinted as amended and will be available in hard copy and online from 8.30 tomorrow morning.

Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place. Members can, however, now lodge amendments for stage 3. Members will be informed of the deadline for amendments, once that has been determined.

That concludes today’s committee business.

Meeting closed at 13:00.  

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

We turn to the stage 3 proceedings on the Islands (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have with them a copy of the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 15A; the marshalled list and the supplement to the marshalled list; and the groupings paper.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, a voting period of one minute will be allowed for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.

Section 2—Meaning of “island community”

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 1, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendment 6.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)

It is a pleasure to get stage 3 of the Islands (Scotland) Bill under way. It feels slightly counterintuitive to start by focusing on uninhabited islands rather than islands that sustain populations and communities but, as the committee acknowledged at stage 2 when it supported my original amendment on the subject, the importance of uninhabited islands should never be underestimated.

As I said at stage 2, although fewer than 20 of Orkney’s islands are inhabited, all 70 or so play a crucial role in making Orkney the unique place that it is, not least in sustaining populations of birds that are of not just national but global significance.

In its briefing, as well as drawing attention to the fact that uninhabited islands can be a refuge for some of Scotland’s most at-risk or sensitive species, RSPB Scotland points to the fact that islands such as St Kilda can also be of considerable cultural significance. The committee agreed, and at stage 2 it took the step of reflecting what it saw as the

“cultural, environmental and economic significance”

of uninhabited islands and including a provision to that effect in the bill.

However, it was accepted by everyone that we needed to ensure that the changes properly reflected our collective intent, and amendment 1 seeks to achieve that by making more explicit the link between uninhabited islands and the inhabited islands to which they make such a significant contribution.

I am very grateful to the minister and his officials for their help in this tidying-up exercise. I also thank RSPB Scotland and committee members—in particular, John Mason, who lodged similar amendments at stage 2—for their support to date, and I hope that Parliament will follow suit.

I move amendment 1.

The Minister for Transport and the Islands (Humza Yousaf)

I am delighted to get stage 3 consideration of the Islands (Scotland) Bill under way on behalf of the Government. On a point of consensus, I thank Liam McArthur for lodging amendment 1. At stage 2, I indicated that the Government agreed with his original amendment to bring uninhabited islands within the scope of the bill. I also indicated that we had a technical concern about the wording of his amendment and the way in which it fitted into section 2—it read as though an “island community” could be an uninhabited island on its own.

I am pleased that the member has worked with us to produce amendment 1, which makes it clearer that uninhabited islands fit within the

“common interest, identity or geography”

of the people on islands rather than constituting communities in their own right. I am happy to support amendment 1.

Amendment 6 is a technical amendment. Section 2A, which was introduced into the bill at stage 2 by amendment 29, in the name of Colin Smyth, provides a definition of “islands authority” in the list of key definitions. The definition was intended to be used for the purposes of amendments that were not agreed to by the committee, and the term “islands authority” is therefore not used in the bill as amended at stage 2. As such, the definition of the term is redundant and serves no legal purpose. The local authorities that are covered by the bill are already listed in the schedule, so amendment 6 simply removes section 2A from the bill as amended at stage 2.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

As the minister said, amendment 6 will remove the definition of the term “islands authority”, which was added at stage 2 as a result of one of my amendments. That amendment was consequential to two other amendments that I lodged at stage 2 that were not agreed to. Accordingly, the inclusion of the term “islands authority” is no longer necessary.

I have lodged amendments at stage 3 that are similar to the two amendments that were not agreed to at stage 2. However, I have chosen not to use the phrase “islands authority”, so there is no longer a requirement for that phrase to be in the bill. Therefore, I am content with amendment 6, which will remove that definition.

I also support amendment 1, in the name of Liam McArthur, which will amend the current provision and cover the fact that uninhabited islands can be considered island communities. The amendment rightly recognises such islands’ natural, cultural and economic value, and it has Labour’s full support.

Liam McArthur

I thank Colin Smyth and the minister for their supportive comments. It was helpful for the minister and Colin Smyth to set out the background to amendment 6, which is a technical amendment that we will also be supporting.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 2A—Meaning of “islands authority”

Amendment 6 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Section 3—National islands plan

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 17 to 23 and 8.

Humza Yousaf

There has been a wide-ranging discussion throughout the bill process about the level of detail that should be included in the national islands plan. Although I have expressed my wariness about putting too much detail on specific points in the bill, I have welcomed the debate and the good discussion that we have had on the issue.

I hold to my central premise on the matter. It would be unfair for Parliament to present to island communities and other stakeholders a pre-populated plan for them only to tinker around the edges with. We have to allow a meaningful process for developing and populating the plan. That said, there is clearly an appetite for the plan to consider and cover particular issues, and I have taken that on board. I welcome the positive discussions that I have had with members across the chamber on a series of amendments.

Amendment 7, in my name, is a minor and technical amendment that will restructure section 3 to allow for more topics to be listed.

Amendment 17, in the name of John Mason, will include “environmental wellbeing” as a topic to be included in the national islands plan, and I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendments 18 to 21, in the name of Liam McArthur, will include “improving transport services”, “improving digital connectivity”, “reducing fuel poverty” and

“ensuring effective management of the Scottish Crown Estate”

as topics in the national islands plan. I am happy to support those amendments.

Amendment 22, in the name of John Finnie, will include

“enhancing biosecurity (including protecting islands from the impact of invasive non-native species)”

as a topic in the national islands plan. I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendment 23, in the name of Jamie Greene, deals with an issue that was raised at stage 2. Jamie Greene proposed that all the objectives in the national islands plan should be measurable. I raised some concerns during the stage 2 debate that I do not think that it is possible to guarantee that every objective, particularly high-level objectives, that will be covered by the plan could realistically be measured. Amendment 23 takes those concerns on board and will place a duty on ministers to consider how to measure the improvement of outcomes, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. It is a good amendment that will require ministers to consider the measurement of outcomes but which will allow for flexibility when it would be difficult to measure outcomes. I am happy to support amendment 23.

Amendment 8, in the name of John Mason, follows from an amendment that he lodged at stage 2. He argued that, although the bill sets out those who must be consulted about the national islands plan, it misses a broader constituency of people who are not based on the islands but who have an interest in the islands—John Mason and I are such people. Amendment 8 is straightforward and will help to deliver John Mason’s aim of including the wider public interest in the national islands plan.

I hope that members will agree to all the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 7.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I will speak to amendments 17 and 8, both of which concern the national islands plan.

The focus of the bill is, rightly, on island communities. Therefore, in section 3(3), the bill focuses on improving and promoting sustainable economic development, health and wellbeing and community empowerment. The focus on those issues is absolutely fine. However, as we heard in the debate on the first amendment, which was about uninhabited islands, there is more to islands than people. That is why the RSPB and I were keen to have a specific mention of the natural heritage of Scotland’s islands in the bill, as that means that it will be embedded in forthcoming and future island plans.

Using the phrase “environmental wellbeing” is more consistent with other legislation such as the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the Scottish Crown Estate Bill. I therefore hope that members will support amendment 17, so that the three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social, and environmental interests—are all included in the bill.

On amendment 8, as the minister said, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to widen the range of those consulted on the islands plan to include a broader constituency of people who are not based on the islands but who have an interest in the islands. As it stands, the bill does not limit those who can respond to consultation but rather provides that certain persons and groups must be consulted. Amendment 8 aims to include the wider public interest. I see that as positive, because there is a genuine commitment to our islands beyond those who normally live on them. Should the amendment be accepted, the relevant provision in the bill will say that the Scottish ministers must consult such persons “as they consider likely to be affected by or have an interest in the proposals” that are contained in the plan.

I hope that members will support both of the amendments.

Liam McArthur

Although the national islands plan enjoys widespread support, it is fair to say that there has been healthy debate about what it should contain, and about the extent to which legislation should set that out explicitly.

I appreciate the balance that needs to be struck here. If the content of the plan is too rigidly defined, it is unlikely that it will have the necessary flexibility to meet effectively the different and changing needs of island communities now and into the future. Nevertheless, as I pointed out at stage 2 when speaking to amendments that Tavish Scott and I lodged, there are key areas on which it would be inconceivable for the plan to remain silent, and it would be helpful for those to be reflected in the bill. The examples that we cited were ferry services, broadband, fuel poverty and Crown Estate powers. Other colleagues made further suggestions. Again, I am grateful to the minister for his willingness since stage 2 to work with me and Tavish Scott in coming up with ways of achieving our shared objectives.

Amendment 18 reflects the fact that, although ferry services are crucially important to our island communities, they are not the only lifeline transport links on which our island communities depend. Similarly, amendment 19 is an acknowledgement that, more than high-speed broadband, the future vitality and even viability of many of our island communities will be reliant on digital connectivity—I say that with apologies to my colleague Tavish Scott, who I know has an aversion to the phrase—that keeps pace with technological advances.

Amendment 20 also includes in the bill an acknowledgment of the importance of national islands plans also addressing the scourge of fuel poverty, which continues to affect a higher proportion of households in rural and island areas than anywhere else.

Again, I thank the minister and his colleague Kevin Stewart for meeting me last week to discuss on-going concerns that I and many people with a direct involvement in rural fuel poverty issues have about the fact that, in redefining fuel poverty, the Government risks ignoring the specific rural dimension to the problem. I hope that, by the time the Government publishes its fuel poverty bill, it will have addressed those concerns. In the meantime, by including the reduction of fuel poverty in the national islands plan, we make that outcome more likely.

Finally, another issue on which the substantive debate will take place in the context of other legislation revolves around the devolution of the Crown Estate’s functions and responsibilities. The stand-alone bill will provide an opportunity for us to debate our respective positions on where those responsibilities are best exercised. For the record, I believe that that should be at island authority level, where there is a desire for that to be the case. For now, amendment 21 will ensure that the national islands plan reflects the importance to our island communities of the effective management of these assets.

Through the islands plan, the bill offers a chance to put in place firm commitments and safeguards to ensure that the provision of services in our islands meets certain standards as a minimum, and that our island communities are not constantly left as an afterthought. I hope that the amendments in my name will go some way to making sure that that happens.

14:15  

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I hear what the minister said about pre-populating a plan. I also align myself with Liam McArthur’s comments about the general direction of travel and I echo his comments about the positive engagement that there has been with the minister and officials.

The Scottish Green Party will support all the amendments in the group, which will enhance what is already a good bill. I will talk in particular about amendment 22, which provides for consideration of

“enhancing biosecurity (including protecting islands from the impact of invasive non-native species).”

Internationally important breeding populations of birds are concentrated on the islands and are vulnerable to predation from ground-based predators such as rats, mice and stoats. Those mammals are not native to the islands, and when they are introduced, whether that happens deliberately or by accident, there can be significant effects, because species cannot breed at the same rate at which they are being predated.

Our breeding seabirds are a global asset—a phrase that has been used—and it is imperative that we protect our islands from invasive species by implementing a biosecurity and early warning rapid response capacity.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Would it be helpful if the member indicated that in referring to “invasive non-native species”, the member is referring to the ecostructure of individual islands rather than Scotland?

John Finnie

Yes, of course. Each island is different, and different threats are posed. There are species that are indigenous in some islands but not in others.

Seabird colonies face climate change-driven impacts. There has been a massive impact, particularly in Shetland and Orkney, which has been linked primarily to the falling population of nutritious prey fish, especially sand eels, whose declines, in turn, are linked to warming seas. We must therefore maximise the resilience of Scotland’s seabird population.

Members might be aware that there is a rolling programme of island restoration, which has included Ailsa Craig, Canna and, more recently, the Shiants, where rodent eradication has taken place. However, that ambition will be pointless unless there are solid biosecurity arrangements for our islands. The protection of currently uninvaded islands is where amendment 22 comes in.

In July 2017, the international island invasives conference was held in Dundee. The event happens only every six or seven years, and it took place in Dundee because the world-leading rodent eradication project in South Georgia, which has officially been declared a success, was led by a team that is based at the University of Dundee.

In the context of the success of past projects and the challenges of unfolding issues, such as the presence of stoats in Orkney, we are well placed to develop a timely and groundbreaking public policy in this regard. I hope that members will support amendment 22 and the other amendments in the group.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I will speak to my amendment 23 and to other amendments in the group.

As the minister said, we came to a position on amendment 23 after I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to give effect to a recommendation of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. The committee said in its stage 1 report:

“The Committee recommends that the National Islands Plan be developed with clear outcomes, targets and measurable indicators by which to establish performance.”

That is important. We should be able to hold the Government of the day to account on the plan, and the introduction of measurable objectives, where possible, would be helpful. I appreciate that we have come some way in the language of amendment 23, and I thank the minister and his bill team for the element of compromise in that regard. I am pleased that we will have support for the introduction of the concept.

It is fair to say that we are broadly supportive of most of the other amendments in the group. However, the problem is that we are doing at stage 3 what we said that we would not do: we are putting in primary legislation a list of items that we agreed we would hope to see in the national islands plan. The committee agreed that a large number of policy areas particularly affect islands, and there are key priority areas, including transport and digital connectivity.

Therefore, although it is pleasing to see members bring in those elements, it is also slightly disappointing that it is happening at stage 3, when it is difficult to say no to some of the concepts. They are indeed things that we should think about in considering outcomes for islands, but I am slightly disappointed that, at this stage, we are trying to create an exhaustive list. The proposed elements do not include access to education, health and social care, housing or workforce and employment opportunities or some of the other things that the committee identified as equally important measures that should be in the plan. We are creating a very small list of things that must be in the islands plan, but we are leaving out things that maybe should be in it. That is my concern about the addition of the list.

John Mason

I take the member’s point that we should not have too much detail, but does he accept that all the proposed additions are at a fairly high level and do not go into a huge amount of detail, and that they are certainly not exclusive?

Jamie Greene

They do not go into a huge amount of detail and they are high level, but it is only two or three issues. Are we therefore saying that those issues are more important than some of the other high-priority areas that the committee discussed? I would hate to think that people would see digital connectivity, transport, reducing fuel poverty and the Crown estate as the only issues that are of importance to the Parliament.

John Finnie

I recognise what the member says, but does he acknowledge that there was an opportunity to lodge amendments to that effect, had he sought to do so?

Jamie Greene

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer, but I could not hear the member properly.

The Presiding Officer

I ask John Finnie to repeat himself.

John Finnie

I acknowledge what Jamie Greene says about the list, but does he acknowledge that, given the timeframe for the consideration of the bill, had he thought that the issues that he listed were important, he could have lodged amendments to that effect?

Jamie Greene

Yes, we could have, but at stages 1 and 2 the committee collectively thought that it was not right to start creating lists, for the reason that I set out, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. We could have added things, but we would have ended up with a very long list of things that we think the islands plan should contain. Nonetheless, I hope that, when the minister produces the islands plan, those things will be in there so, for that reason, we will support the amendments on those issues. We will also support Mr Finnie’s amendment 22, on enhancing biosecurity on islands. That is an important addition, and there is little to disagree with in it.

However, we are less in favour of two of the amendments. The first is John Mason’s amendment 17, on environmental wellbeing. I thank the member for explaining that in a little more detail, but the term “environmental wellbeing” is unclear and a little vague for the bill. What does he mean by it?

John Mason

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene

Yes. If Mr Mason can help us with that, it would be much appreciated.

John Mason

The original wording was “natural heritage”, and the RSPB, the Government and I were comfortable with that. However, to get consistency with other legislation, the preference is for “environmental wellbeing”. The two phrases are really meant to mean the same thing.

Jamie Greene

I do not think that they are the same thing. I still think that “environmental wellbeing” is a very non-specific phrase that does not have a huge amount of meaning in legislation.

Amendment 8, which is also from John Mason, is on the duty to consult on the production of the plan, which we had a lot of chat about. If the amendment were agreed to, it would mean that anyone who had “an interest” in islands would have to be consulted in the production of the plan. I hope that it would not be a consequence of that that any stakeholder with any interest would somehow get involved in the process, as that would detract from the fact that islanders should be at the heart of consultation on and preparation of the plan. The phrase “have an interest in” would open up the process far too much to any stakeholder anywhere in the country who had a vested interest in any matter that the plan may address. For that reason, we are unable to support amendment 8.

Colin Smyth

I welcome amendment 7, in the name of Humza Yousaf, which ensures that the reference to increasing population remains in the bill. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to ensure that increasing population was included in the aims of the national islands plan, and I am pleased to see that the minister recognises the importance of that in his amendment by retaining the reference, albeit that it is now worded slightly differently. Depopulation is a key challenge that islands communities face, and it is essential that the national islands plan sets out proposals to tackle that challenge. Explicitly stating that in the bill is an effective way to ensure that it remains a priority not just now but in the future.

I am pleased to support amendments 17 to 22 from John Mason, Liam McArthur and John Finnie, which all provide more detail and a statutory underpinning to the aims of the national islands plan. I support the principle of outlining the aims of the plan in the bill as a means to ensure that the plan’s ambition and aims are not watered down over time. The issues that are referenced in amendments 17 to 22 are critically important to island communities and should be included.

Amendment 23, in the name of Jamie Greene, creates a reasonable and useful requirement for ministers to outline how they will measure the extent to which the aims of the plan are realised. That is a valuable addition to the bill, which I am happy to support.

I am also happy to support amendment 8, in the name of John Mason, which broadens who should be consulted in the preparation of the national islands plan to include those with “an interest in” the relevant proposals. That is a logical amendment, which serves to strengthen the consultation process and, I hope, the final plan.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I will talk about amendment 17. I listened carefully to what John Mason has just said about the definition of “environmental wellbeing”. The term still seems very vague to me and is open to all sorts of interpretation. If Mr Mason would be any clearer in his definition, rather than saying that he thinks it that it means the same as something else, I would be delighted to hear it now, as that may sway the Conservatives. I am prepared to give way to Mr Mason if he is prepared to defend it.

John Mason

I am not sure that I can add an awful lot to what I have already said. Our first choice was “natural heritage” and, as I said, it is our intention that “environmental wellbeing” means the same as that. We are seeking consistency with other legislation; if we use such terms in a variety of legislation, it is better to use the same terms, and those words seem to have been accepted in other legislation.

Edward Mountain

I thank Mr Mason for trying to explain that. The problem is that “environmental wellbeing” will mean different things to different people with regard to different environments; the wellbeing of one environment may be improved by something, but that of a different environment may not.

I come to the chamber with 15 years’ experience as a land manager and a degree in land management—[Interruption.] I have never before come across this term or definition, which seems unquantifiable. Because I believe that good legislation requires tight definitions that are explainable and definable, it is impossible for me and the Scottish Conservatives to vote for the amendment.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

In the interest of good legislation and good government, we want to get the bill right at stage 3. I ask for some clarification from the minister on John Mason’s amendment 8. I heard what Jamie Greene said about whether the amendment will open up the process too widely to those with “an interest” and take the focus away from islanders. Is the Government content that the amendment will make for good legislation? I am genuinely interested to hear what the minister has to say, as it would be very helpful.

Humza Yousaf

Once again, the debate has been good and informative on the content of the plan. I give reassurance to Jamie Greene that he is absolutely right that there has to be a balance with regard to not producing an exhaustive list and, in some respects, it could be argued that we are starting to fall down that trap. However, we have safeguards and checks and balances, because we are discussing generally high-level objectives.

The list is not exhaustive, and the important part is section 4, “Preparation and scrutiny of plan”. The island communities will be very much part of the engagement process when we come to develop the national islands plan. Others might have an input—perhaps those who do not live on islands and represent the mainland—but, realistically, pragmatically and practically speaking, there is no doubt in anybody’s mind that we will travel to many island communities to hear directly from them about their needs and interests in relation to the national islands plan.

The point is well made—it is on the record—that there is no need for an exhaustive list. We have a general direction of travel about high-level important issues. Amendment 17, in the name of John Mason, falls into that category of high-level objectives, and we would be splitting hairs if members cannot accept that “environmental wellbeing” is an overarching high-level objective, which it very much is. We will support John Mason’s amendment and all the amendments in this group.

I am pleased that we have achieved a degree of consensus and agreement on the plan, and I ask members to support the amendments in my name and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[John Mason].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. This is the first division, so I suspend proceedings for five minutes.

14:31 Meeting suspended.  

14:36 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

We move to the division on amendment 17.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 28, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Amendments 18 to 21 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[John Finnie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 23 moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Preparation and scrutiny of plan

Amendment 8 moved—[John Mason].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 34, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Section 8—Island communities impact assessment

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 3. Amendment 24, in the name of Peter Chapman, is grouped with amendments 25, 10, 12, 28 and 33.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I will speak to all the amendments in the group, including amendment 25, which is also in my name.

Amendment 24 introduces into the bill the concept of retrospective island impact assessments. That concept was widely supported at stage 1 across all parties, but it was not supported at stage 2. It is a simple amendment that seeks to ensure that

“A relevant authority must prepare an island communities impact assessment in relation to a—

(a) policy,

(b) strategy, or

(c) service,

which, in the authority’s opinion,”

has had

“an effect on an island community which is significantly different from its effect on other communities”

It is clear that the Scottish Government and members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee support the concept of island proofing, and amendment 24 would enable authorities to submit an assessment to the Scottish Government on any previous legislation that has significantly hindered island communities. It was argued at stage 2 that that simple amendment could create an overbureaucratic exercise for authorities and could open the door too widely to change, but the amendment makes it clear that it would operate in the same way as future island impact assessments, and only if an authority felt that a policy, service or strategy has had a significant impact on an island community would it have to prepare an assessment.

I appreciate that the Minister for Transport and the Islands has verbally committed to reviewing any past legislation that has had a significant impact on an island community. Given that commitment, if a relevant authority brings something to his attention, I think that it is appropriate to acknowledge that in the bill.

Amendment 25, which is also in my name, is consequential on amendment 24. As a technical change, it copies the wording in section 8(1) to ensure that relevant authorities do not have to publish explanations for not carrying out island communities impact assessments unless the policy, strategy or service has

“had an effect on an island community which is significantly different from its effects on other communities”.

We support amendment 10, in the name of the minister. Amendment 10 is a technical amendment that ensures that relevant authorities can effectively comply with the section 7 duty to

“have regard to island communities”,

and therefore to produce island communities impact assessments, as set out in section 8.

We also support amendment 12, in the name of Liam McArthur, and amendment 28, in the name of Colin Smyth. Those amendments also relate to retrospective island communities impact assessments, but they are much more prescriptive than my amendment.

Amendment 12 sets out a process for Scottish ministers to follow in responding to requests from relevant authorities, and also places on Scottish ministers a duty to publish retrospective island communities impact assessments. That would be particularly useful for authorities that do not have the time to carry out their own assessments. Amendment 28 ensures that new regulations set out by ministers must be laid before the Parliament, and that each local authority listed in the schedule, and any other relevant person, must be consulted.

Both amendments 12 and 28 add to the scrutiny of the Scottish ministers’ role in the process, which is important to ensuring that the Scottish Government commitment is met. Amendment 33 is consequential on amendment 28, and we will therefore support it, too.

I move amendment 24.

Humza Yousaf

Amendment 24, in the name of Peter Chapman, is a repeat of an amendment that he lodged at stage 2. I am afraid that I still cannot support it. I will reiterate a lot of what I said at stage 2, as it remains relevant.

The amendment seems to require all the relevant authorities to review all previous policies, services or strategies that they believe may have had a significantly different impact on island communities from their effect on other communities. As there are no criteria or thresholds for the retrospective element, the amendment has no time limit on how far back the relevant authority would need to go. Would it have to go back years, or even decades? I asked that question at stage 2 and the answer still seems to be that it would be mandatory for an authority to review and potentially prepare an impact assessment for every policy, strategy or service that it has ever developed, delivered or redeveloped. That is neither practical nor reasonable. Undertaking those reviews could also take a significant amount of resource, which could be deployed elsewhere.

14:45  

Amendment 25, which was also lodged by Peter Chapman, seems to require that, when a relevant authority does not prepare an island communities impact assessment for a policy, strategy or service that

“is likely to have or have had”

a significantly different effect on an island community from its effect on other communities, it must publish its reasons for not doing so. Under section 8(1), if there is a significantly different effect on an island community, the relevant authority is under a duty to prepare an island communities impact assessment. It has no choice. There would be no question of the authority publishing the reasons for not undertaking such an assessment because, in those circumstances, it would have done the assessment.

I hope that that reassures Mr Chapman that there is already adequate provision in the bill to achieve broadly the same purpose as that of his amendment 25 and that he will not press it. If he does press it, I cannot support it, as it is a measure that duplicates process and requires that an excessive burden be placed on the resources of affected relevant authorities.

Jamie Greene

I think that the minister is saying that amendment 24 would mean that all historical legislation must be looked at for its effect on islands, but the key phrase in the bill is “in the authority’s opinion”. There is still an element of subjectivity in relation to which historical legislation has to be looked at, so not all pieces of legislation would have to be looked at. If amendment 24 were agreed to, the safeguard of the phrase “in the authority’s opinion” would remain in the bill.

Humza Yousaf

I accept Jamie Greene’s point, which could, in a sense, make the proposal redundant. What is the purpose of Peter Chapman’s amendment if the power rests with the authority to determine whether to review legislation? I will come on to a couple of other amendments that tackle that issue slightly better.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 28 would require ministers to develop regulations to set up a scheme to allow island local authorities to make a request that legislation be amended. I know from experience that one island authority can indicate that it is having difficulty with the requirements of a particular piece of legislation and is keen to see it changed, but other islands authorities will have no issues with the same legislation. The problem might be a more local issue regarding implementation rather than a problem with the legislation itself. I fear that, if amendment 28 were agreed to, it could become the default starting position for islands authorities that do not like a particular piece of legislation, rather than their engaging proactively to seek resolution through other means.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 28 seems to ignore the fact that we are creating island proofing of legislation in the bill. His amendment would create a future in which, no matter that a piece of legislation had been through the island-proofing process as set out in the bill, a local authority could still put in a request and essentially relitigate the whole process at any time.

I turn to Liam McArthur’s amendment 12, to which a number of issues that are similar to those that I outlined in speaking to amendment 28 apply. However, amendment 12 has the benefit that it would create a simple and straightforward process that focuses on requests for island communities impact assessments rather than leaping to the need for legislative change.

I understand the point that has been made. I have listened and tried to work out what we can do to respond to members’ concerns flexibly and proportionately. To address those concerns, I lodged amendment 10, which is based on a stage 2 amendment that was lodged by Colin Smyth, to whom I am grateful for his input. Amendment 10 will put in place a requirement to have an on-going, flexible and proportionate review process that would have the same effect as a retrospective assessment process. Indeed, it would support better governance all round. The Government, public authorities and agencies should keep policies and legislation under review, and we should want to test continuously how things are working in practice and make necessary adjustments or changes as needed. Amendment 10 recognises that there is a continuing need to reflect on current policies and strategies and to undertake island communities impact assessments when required in a flexible and proportionate way.

In order to give members even further reassurance, I agree that it would be useful to determine whether there is existing legislation that the Parliament has passed that needs to be addressed in view of the interests and needs of islands. My offer to islands authorities has always been that I have an open door and that they can come forward with any proposals on legislation that they think needs to be re-examined. I give members a further undertaking that I will continue to work with cabinet secretaries and fellow ministers to proactively trawl their portfolio interests for recent legislation, policies, strategies and plans in order to review the impact on islands. That action would have the impact and effect that are being sought, without the need for legislation.

I hope that members will support amendment 10, in my name. I urge Mr Chapman to withdraw amendment 24 and not to move amendment 25. I urge Colin Smyth not to move amendments 28 and 33, as they would lead to the many problems that I have outlined. I ask Liam McArthur not to move amendment 12, although if he moves it, I will be happy to support it.

Liam McArthur

The centrepiece of the bill is its promise of so-called island proofing. It is a commitment that future policy and legislation will be tailored to reflect the needs and circumstances of island communities and is a move away from a damaging one-size-fits-all approach to governing. That is welcome, of course, but it cannot be the extent of our ambition.

For years, I have highlighted examples of decisions by Government and its agencies that have failed to take proper account of the island dimension. For island proofing to be properly effective in meeting the needs of our island communities, we need to be able to look back as well as forward. I accept that that cannot be wholly open ended. Unfortunately, an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 risked the prospect of legislation down through the ages being subject to some kind of island-proofing MOT. Government, whether at the national or at the local level, does not have the time, resources or appetite to get bogged down in a never-ending review of every piece of legislation on the statute book.

Having listened to the minister’s concerns at stage 2, I believe that my amendment 12 now offers a proportionate means of enabling island proofing to take place retrospectively. Islands authorities would be the route through which an application for a review of existing legislation or strategies would be made to ministers. Ministers would then have three months in which to grant or refuse any request, giving reasons in the case of the latter. Where a request was granted, ministers would have six months in which to prepare a retrospective island communities impact assessment.

Those are reasonable timescales and a proportionate response to the case made by all three island councils, the committee and many others for island proofing to be extended to existing legislation, policy and strategies. I acknowledge and welcome the steps taken by Peter Chapman and Colin Smyth to address the same issue, although I hope that they and their colleagues might agree to support my amendment 12 in order to take forward our common objective.

Previously, I have given examples of regulations governing issues as diverse as building standards and homecare provision that, in an Orkney context, risk achieving the opposite of the laudable intentions behind them. That is in no one’s interests, least of all those of our island communities. The bill must prevent such situations from arising in future, but amendment 12 allows us an opportunity to right at least some of the wrongs that already exist. I am grateful to the minister for the indication of his support, albeit caveated, for amendment 12. I am also grateful to Colin Smyth for the collaborative approach that he has taken to amendment 12, and I look forward to voting on it later.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 28, in my name, would require ministers to establish a scheme for requests by local authorities to improve or mitigate the effect of existing legislation. Amendment 28 is entirely in keeping with the aims of the bill. The introduction of island impact assessments recognises the unique nature of the islands and the need to ensure that protections are in place against any unintended negative consequences of legislation. To limit that solely to new legislation when the impact of existing laws could be detrimental to our island communities would not capture the spirit of the bill.

I believe that my amendment 28 complements Liam McArthur’s amendment 12 on retrospective impact assessments. There is a need for a general retrospective impact assessment mechanism and I fully support Liam McArthur’s amendment 12 in that regard. However, what amendment 28 seeks to do is slightly different and might help reduce the administrative burden of retrospective impact assessments. If a specific problem with existing legislation has already been identified, going through the entire impact assessment process would be unnecessary; instead, local authorities would have the ability to request that legislation be amended.

Throughout the bill process, the Government has been keen to suggest that the inclusion of any retrospective impact assessment mechanism would be a bureaucratic burden and that we would be creating scope for endless assessments of every piece of legislation. However, I do not think that that is the case with amendments 28 and 12. Under both those amendments, local authorities would be required to make the case as to why any given piece of legislation should be assessed or amended, and if the request was groundless, it would be rejected. Moreover, we should trust local authorities not to make frivolous or unnecessary requests. Given that the bill came about following the excellent work done by islands authorities in the our islands, our future campaign, it would be disappointing to send a message to island communities that we do not trust them to highlight legitimate concerns about the impact of existing legislation and will not give them a formal mechanism for doing so.

Just as legislation should be subject to the new duties created by the bill, so too should the policies, strategies and services of relevant authorities. Amendment 10, in the name of Humza Yousaf, requires relevant authorities to review policies, strategies and services to ensure that they are compliant with the new statutory duty to have regard to island communities. As the minister said, amendment 10 came about as a result of my discussions with him after stage 2. Members may recall that at stage 2 I proposed an amendment setting out a requirement to review a decision not to conduct an island communities impact assessment. I did not press my amendment at the time, after the minister indicated that he would lodge a suitable amendment at stage 3, which he has done. I hope that all members will support amendment 10.

Amendment 33, in my name, requires that any regulations brought forward as a result of amendment 28 should be subject to the affirmative procedure. It simply adds an element of oversight and accountability to ensure that ministers bring forward a scheme that is in keeping with the spirit of amendment 28, as well as the letter of the law, and that requires the affirmative endorsement of Parliament.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind Peter Chapman’s amendment 24, which seeks to ensure that relevant authorities’ existing policies are subject to island impact assessments. I am, however, concerned that, as worded, the amendment would create an unreasonable and unnecessary burden for the relevant authorities. Under amendment 24, they would be required to conduct an impact assessment of any policy, strategy or service that has had, at any point, a significantly different impact on an island’s community, regardless of whether it continues to do so.

Furthermore, I believe that the aim of amendment 24—of ensuring that existing policies are subject to the new statutory duty to have regard to island communities—is already met in amendment 10, which requires the relevant authorities to review their policies, strategies and services as needed to ensure that they comply with that duty.

My interpretation of Peter Chapman’s amendment 25 is that its purpose is similar to that of my amendment 26, but I am concerned that it may weaken the existing provision. Under amendment 26, relevant authorities would be required to provide an explanation as to why they did not conduct an islands impact assessment in relation to any decision affecting an island community. Under Peter Chapman’s amendment 25, it would seem that relevant authorities would be required to do so only in instances in which the effect is likely to be significantly different from the effect on other communities.

That is an important distinction and significantly raises the bar with regard to which decisions require an explanation. In instances in which relevant authorities do not consider that an impact assessment is necessary, on the ground that the policy will not have a significantly different impact on island communities, it is right that local communities receive an explanation as to how that decision was reached. That does not appear to be the case under amendment 25.

Therefore, we will not support amendments 24 and 25.

Stewart Stevenson

I rise to speak to Peter Chapman’s amendments 24 and 25. Amendment 25 uses the phrase “in the authority’s opinion”. I read that as meaning that the authority has to have an opinion—it cannot avoid having an opinion. It is to have an opinion and, given that in the amendment we also read the words “or have had”, the authority must also have an opinion on every single thing that affects the island. It has to invest time and effort only to discover that it ends up with no material opinion on anything—but it has to have an opinion.

Peter Chapman

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson

No, not at this stage.

The equivalent amendment at stage 2—amendment 62—was voted down. At the time, I referred to the Common Good Act 1491, because Comhairle nan Eilean Siar has no common good funds and is therefore different from other islands. It would therefore be necessary to consider the effect of the 1491 act on the Western Isles as compared with other islands.

However, I note that the legal effect of the 1491 act is minimal, so I bring forward a different example, not from decades ago but from centuries back—the Minority Act 1663. That act relates to the position of minors who have property on which the leasehold will expire before they achieve their majority. Is there a difference in the islands? Actually, there is, because in Orkney and Shetland there is property law called udal law, which applies only on those two groups of islands. Udal law has an effect on the way that leaseholds work. People who are minors without tutors are affected in that particular regard.

15:00  

The Presiding Officer

Mr Stevenson, I do not really want to halt you mid flow, but we have allocated one hour for groups 1 to 3 and we need to get John Finnie in, so perhaps you could bring your remarks towards a conclusion.

Stewart Stevenson

You have just pre-empted me, Presiding Officer. I was just going to say that the final point that I want to make is about the phrase “significantly different”. Udal law is significantly different, but of course it is significantly beneficially different to Orkney and Shetland. Under amendment 25, they would still be forced to consider whether they should continue it, even though it is beneficial.

John Finnie

My colleague Liam McArthur said that the centrepiece of the bill was island proofing. That phrase has recurred frequently. It has led to a lot of expectations, not least with regard to the question of retrospection. Although no reasonable person would expect there to be a blank cheque associated with this, and a retrospective application would be unusual, of the amendments that are before us, Liam McArthur’s amendment is measured and proportionate. I urge him to press it; I hope that members will also support the minister’s amendment 10.

The Presiding Officer

As we are nearing the agreed time limit, I am prepared to exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate on this group to continue beyond the time limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. I ask Peter Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment.

Peter Chapman

I wish only to state that I will press amendment 24.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you very much. In that case, the question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 94, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 24 disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I call amendment 25, in the name of Peter Chapman, and ask whether he wishes to move it.

Peter Chapman

Given that it is consequential on amendment 24, I will not move it.

Amendment 25 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

We come to group 4. Amendment 26, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 9, 9A, 2, 11, 5, 15 and 34.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 26 amends the wording of my stage 2 amendment 69 requiring that, should a relevant authority decide not to conduct an island impact assessment, it must publish an explanation as to why. Amendment 26 clarifies that that provision relates only to policies, strategies or services that have an effect on an island community. I should make it clear that it is not intended to weaken or limit the current provision and will exclude only decisions that are entirely irrelevant to island communities.

Amendment 9, in the name of Humza Yousaf, concerns a review mechanism for island impact assessments. In its stage 1 report, the committee described such a mechanism as “essential”—a view that I entirely share. If island communities are to have faith in the process, there must be greater accountability, and the introduction of a review mechanism is a straightforward way of ensuring that decisions can be challenged and the voices of island communities are heard. The wording that is proposed by the minister would make the creation of that mechanism a possibility, whereas I believe that it should be a requirement. Therefore, amendment 9A, in my name, seeks to make that the case.

Amendment 2, in the name of Tavish Scott, requires that the guidance that is issued in relation to authorities’ new duty to have regard to island communities be approved by the Parliament before it comes into force. I fully understand why Tavish Scott wishes that requirement to be included in the bill. Indeed, a great deal of the bill’s potential remains to be realised—its impact and scope are dependent on the development of guidance, regulations and the national islands plan. As a result, there is a strong case for parliamentary oversight of future provisions, so I am sympathetic to amendment 2.

I have no objection to amendment 11, in the name of Humza Yousaf. Likewise, I am happy to support amendment 15, in his name.

Tavish Scott’s amendment 5 outlines ministers’ duties to consult island communities on changes to any relevant policy, strategy or service. Establishing island communities’ rights and ministers’ responsibilities in that regard is obviously very beneficial, and I have no objections to that amendment.

Finally, amendment 34, in my name, simply edits the wording of my stage 2 amendment 59—which included integration joint boards on the list of relevant authorities—in order to future proof the provision and ensure that any changes are automatically captured.

I move amendment 26.

Humza Yousaf

I am happy to support amendment 26, in the name of Colin Smyth. Having discussed with him the impact of his stage 2 amendment 69, which put the new section 8(4) into the bill, I welcome his amendment 26. Amendment 26 provides helpful clarification that relevant authorities would not be required to publish reasons for not undertaking an island communities impact assessment if the policy, strategy or service did not impact on an island community in any way.

I am also happy to support Colin Smyth’s amendment 34. It makes a technical change to future proof his stage 2 amendment 59, which included all the IJBs as relevant authorities in the schedule to the bill.

Amendments 9 and 15 are in my name. At stage 2, Colin Smyth lodged an amendment that attempted to create a process that would allow for a review of a relevant authority’s decision not to undertake an island communities impact assessment. There were a number of problems with that amendment, and I offered to come back at stage 3 with a revised proposition and a compromise—which is to include a power that would allow ministers to make regulations with respect to reviews.

If the operation of the new island-proofing measures in the bill identifies issues and problems that mean that a review would be beneficial, my amendments would allow a review to take place on the basis of the evidence. That seems to be the sensible approach to take. It enables a remedy to be sought, should one be required, instead of imposing a remedy before anyone can determine whether one might be needed. Taking a power to set up a review mechanism through regulations also allows greater flexibility. Although the provision is silent on this, my intention is to enable the views and feedback of stakeholders and communities to inform how subsections 2(a) to (f) of the proposed new section could best be implemented to ensure that reviews take place in the most effective way.

Although amendment 31, in the name of Jamie Greene, will be discussed with group 10, it can be considered as complementary to my amendment 9. Amendment 31 would establish a mechanism to review the operation of the act as a whole, including the provisions on island communities impact assessments, with that review taking place within four years of the bill receiving royal assent. Taken together, those two amendments would provide evidence that would enable us to reach a conclusion as to whether a separate review process was required, and they would provide the means to put that into effect. On that basis, I ask members to support amendment 9 and amendment 15, which is a technical amendment that would ensure that the regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure.

On that basis, I cannot support amendment 9A, which was lodged by Mr Smyth. His amendment replaces “may” with “must”, which would mean that we could not wait until the publication of the report and the evaluation of the act nor establish whether any evidence had emerged of the need for a review process. Instead, ministers would have to make regulations to set up a review process as soon as they could after the provisions had come into force. That seems unnecessary and disproportionate, and it would risk our creating a process for its own sake without thinking through what resources that would take or, indeed, whether it was needed. We could decide that it was not needed but, unfortunately, we would have to go ahead with it because of Colin Smyth’s amendment.

Nevertheless, I understand why Mr Smyth thinks that a review might be needed. I therefore give him an undertaking on the record that we will evaluate the operation of the impact assessments process and that we will create a review process, should one be necessary, which will have the statutory underpinning that is set out. I hope that that is sufficient to persuade the member not to move amendment 9A. If he does, I ask members to vote against it.

As I have said, amendment 11, in my name, is another technical amendment. The criteria under section 12(3) were changed by Jamie Greene’s stage 2 amendment 78, which added a financial implications requirement to the section 12 island communities impact assessment of legislation. That means that the criteria in section 12(3) are now different from, and more onerous than, those in section 8(3). My amendment 11 makes it clear that an assessment that is completed under the more stringent criteria of section 12 should also be considered to be an island communities impact assessment under section 8, thereby demonstrating compliance with the duty in section 7.

Amendment 2, in the name of Tavish Scott, is drafted in the same terms as his stage 2 amendment 23. As I said at that time, I understand what he seeks to achieve with the amendment, but I cannot support it. The content of the guidance is crucial to understanding what is expected of public bodies in practice in relation to implementing and delivering the island-proofing duty, and section 10 makes it clear that public authorities will be expected to follow that guidance, which will be developed in full consultation with islands authorities, island communities and other relevant stakeholders. I am determined to ensure that that is a meaningful process.

However, amendment 2 would stop the application of that guidance until Parliament had considered and approved it. It therefore has the potential to slow down implementation of the island-proofing duty substantially. It would also potentially require every iteration of the guidance to come before Parliament for approval, meaning that relatively small changes or additions would be subject to a lengthy and cumbersome process. I believe that that would reduce flexibility and adaptability and would slow things down.

The guidance will need to adapt with experience, to highlight good practice and caution against bad practice. It is not normal practice for the Parliament to approve guidance that is issued by the Scottish ministers rather than guidance that is issued by the Parliament itself, for the very good reason that the Parliament has limited time and resources. To look at detailed guidance every time it is changed would be quite a burden.

I offered a compromise at stage 2, and I am happy to offer it again. I committed to bringing before Parliament the very first version of the guidance in draft before it is published, so that Parliament can contribute to the development process. That seems to be the most important stage for members to have sight of the guidance, rather than every single time that it is altered. I undertake to do that and, on that basis, I ask Tavish Scott not to move amendment 2. If he does, I ask members to vote against it.

Amendment 5 is also in the name of Tavish Scott, and I am grateful to him for lodging it. The amendment includes a further step for ministers, after they have prepared an island communities impact assessment under section 8, requiring them to undertake a further consultation in circumstances in which a “material change” has taken place. I have some worries because the amendment would introduce a new term—“material change”—that is not used elsewhere in the bill and because such a process could add another layer of complexity. However, I understand the principle behind the amendment, so I am happy to support it.

Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (LD)

I am terribly tempted to start with a debate on udal law, but I will spare members that for another day. I am really exercised to lodge an amendment on udal law, but at some stage there will be a bill that allows us do so.

I will speak briefly to amendments 2 and 5. I hear what the minister says about bringing a first draft of the guidance to Parliament. I also recognise what he said about amendment 2 slowing down island proofing, which is very much against what I would argue for. Therefore, although, as Colin Smyth set out rather well, the arguments are in favour of the guidance being scrutinised adequately and properly—this is an enabling piece of legislation, and it is important that any bill that is constructed in such a way is properly scrutinised by Parliament—I take the minister’s line, which he has read on to the record this afternoon, that presenting the first draft to Parliament will allow proper scrutiny not just by committees and members of the Parliament but by island communities themselves. On that basis, I am minded not to move amendment 2.

Let me be blunt in saying that amendment 5 would not have been lodged were it not for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. The principle of consultation is enshrined in numerous Government documents of all political persuasions, yet HIAL—which, for those who do not know, is and always has been wholly owned by the Government—plans to impose car parking charges on Kirkwall, Stornoway and Sumburgh airports without consultation. It has flatly refused to consult, which no one in the islands appreciates at all—nor, I believe, should the Government.

15:15  

HIAL’s defence—I will not even give it credit for having mounted one—is that it knows the answer to the question, “Would you like to pay for parking at our airports?” Could the Government imagine Shetland Islands Council, for example, deciding to close a school and saying, “We’re not going to bother consulting parents, because we know what they would say”? Not surprisingly, the Government’s response would be to say, “No, you can’t do that. You must consult, and here’s why: there’s legislation, there are all these documents and there are your own strategies and many other mechanisms in place. You must consult.” I cannot conceive how a Government agency—in this case, Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd—could get away with not consulting on such a matter.

I hope that, even at this late stage, the minister recognises that, in the context of island proofing, it is extremely important that HIAL is made to consult properly, just as any other local authority or public agency would have to. That is the basis for amendment 5, and I ask members to support it.

Peter Chapman

We support amendment 26, in the name of Colin Smyth, as it would provide a safeguard for relevant authorities that may not have the time or the resources to publish reports quickly. The amendment would give an authority the time and latitude to publish

“as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards and in such manner as it considers appropriate”.

That would be appropriate.

We will support amendment 9, in the name of the minister, but only if it is amended by amendment 9A, in the name of Colin Smyth. Amendment 9 would add a new section titled “Reviews of decisions relating to island communities impact assessments”. Although I am glad that the minister wants to add that section, Colin Smyth’s amendment 9A is necessary, as it would change “may” to “must”, ensuring that the provision allowing the appeal of decisions must be included in the bill. That change, which was recommended at stage 1, is important, as it would enable authorities to challenge a decision on an island communities impact assessment when they felt that there had been a significant impact on their community that had not been successfully assessed.

We support amendment 2, in the name of Tavish Scott, which would ensure that Scottish ministers would have to lay the

“guidance they propose to issue”

to islands authorities “before the Scottish Parliament” for it to be subsequently approved by the Parliament. The amendment would ensure cross-party scrutiny so that local authorities would receive the best guidance for their community.

We support amendment 15, which is a technical amendment.

We support amendment 11, in the name of the minister, which came about as a result of amendment 31, in the name of Jamie Greene, which has yet to be debated. In the light of the minister’s comments, we can now support his amendment 11.

We support amendment 5, which would add a new section to the bill, ensuring that island communities are statutory consultees.

We also support amendment 34, which is another technical amendment and which would make a change to the bodies that are listed in the schedule.

The Presiding Officer

I call Colin Smyth to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment.

Colin Smyth

I press amendment 26.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

After section 8

Amendment 9 moved—[Humza Yousaf].

Amendment 9A moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 9A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 62, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9A agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Minister, do you wish to press amendment 9, as amended?

Humza Yousaf

Yes.

Amendment 9, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9—Compliance with section 7 duty

Amendment 10 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Guidance about section 7 duty

Amendment 2 not moved.

Section 12—Preparation of island communities impact assessment by Ministers

Amendment 11 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

After section 12

The Presiding Officer

We move to group 5. Amendment 4, in the name of Tavish Scott, is the only amendment in the group.

Tavish Scott

Amendment 4 would require the Scottish ministers to prepare an island communities impact assessment in relation to existing legislation and strategies on waste management. The impact assessment would have to describe the effect of that legislation and those strategies on the recovery and disposal of waste in island communities.

I take on board the arguments that Jamie Greene and other members made earlier in relation to the list, but amendment 4 has a specific purpose that relates to the waste flow in Shetland. The issue that my amendment deals with is a very simple one. Waste is used in a waste-to-energy plant. The energy that is produced heats water that is pumped through Lerwick’s district heating system, which heats the Gilbert Bain hospital in Lerwick, care centres and schools across the capital, and many homes. That is the way in which recycling of waste is done there. The system, which was built many years ago using local and central Government moneys, completes a waste loop.

I appreciate that much waste regulation has changed and that it will continue to change. My intention in amendment 4 is simply to ensure that, in the waste legislation and strategies that Government and local government devise and adhere to, there is an understanding of the dynamics of what happens in islands. In the example that I have given, that is not currently the case. I look to the minister for recognition of that fact, and I hope that he might be able to find a way to deal with the situation in the context of my amendment.

I move amendment 4.

Stewart Stevenson

I will be brief. It is worth saying that islands are allowed to be different in all sorts of different ways.

I have some technical issues with subsection (2) of the new section that amendment 4 seeks to insert in the bill, which hooks the whole thing to royal assent. It is worth looking at what the bill says. On the day after royal assent, only sections 1, 2, 22 and 24 will come into force, so the new section that amendment 4 provides for would not be included. There is therefore a wee bit of a lacuna in the way in which the amendment has been constructed.

In any event, given that, on royal assent, only the housekeeping bits of the bill—not the powers—will be brought into force, it is only when a commencement order is laid that any parts of the bill that matter to islands will come into effect. I am therefore slightly doubtful about the construction of amendment 4 and I ask Tavish Scott to address that in his closing remarks.

Jamie Greene

I thank Tavish Scott for bringing the issue to the Parliament’s attention through amendment 4. It deals with a specific issue that relates to a localised area on a specific island. I see what the member is seeking to do. One could argue that the bill is not the place to address such specific environmental issues, but it is the Islands (Scotland) Bill, and if it is not the place and now is not the time to deal with such issues, where and when should they be dealt with? For that reason, and given that there is nothing in particular in amendment 4 for us to disagree with, Tavish Scott will have the support of Conservative members for it.

John Finnie

This is a graphic example of the importance of geography. Tavish Scott talked about understanding the dynamics. This is a clear example of a situation where we could argue that there are conflicting policies. There might have been an expectation that I would rise to say something, but I am not going to say it. We need to have a pragmatic approach and look at everything in the round. If Tavish Scott presses amendment 4, the Green Party will support it.

Humza Yousaf

I appreciate that remote communities, including our island communities, can face challenges to meeting our policy ambitions for tackling waste. That is why we continue to work closely with island councils, through Zero Waste Scotland, to assist them in achieving compliance.

I am aware that island councils are making steady progress towards achieving compliance with the existing legislation. For example, we expect the recycling rate in Shetland to increase significantly as new recycling services are rolled out with assistance from Zero Waste Scotland, particularly in light of Shetland Islands Council’s decision in 2017 to sign up to the Scottish household recycling charter.

A retrospective impact assessment of existing legislation and strategies, as proposed in amendment 4, would be of little value because a significant amount of our existing law and policy is underpinned by European Parliament and European Council directives. Any deviation from those requirements could result in costly infraction proceedings being undertaken. It is more constructive to focus on the practical steps that are needed to improve recycling performance and consider waste management options, which is what we are doing through Zero Waste Scotland.

Bearing in mind the good points that Tavish Scott articulated, I am happy to commit to review the best practical environmental options for the collection and processing of recyclable waste in Shetland, in order to assist island councils in their duties. I am happy to ask my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform to meet Tavish Scott to discuss that work, and to bring together the relevant stakeholders. I believe that she has given Tavish Scott that undertaking outside the chamber, and I am happy to give that commitment again.

Given those assurances, I hope that Tavish Scott will not press amendment 4.

Tavish Scott

I thank colleagues for speaking to amendment 4 in the way in which they have. I take John Finnie’s point given his party’s position on what I might call a waste energy plant and what he might call something else.

I take the minister’s point about a Government review of the best environmental options. I accept that concession and the spirit in which it was given. I am grateful to the minister for that. Given that Parliament will agree to Liam McArthur’s amendment 12, which we debated a few minutes ago, there will be a mechanism in place to pursue the issue in a different way. Those two factors make it clear to me that the parties that need to come together to resolve the matter in the round can do so, given what the minister and Parliament have said. On that basis, I will not press amendment 4.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 12 moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.

Amendment 28 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 disagreed to.

15:30  

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 27, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 13, 32 and 16.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 27 would require ministers to create a scheme in which local authorities can request devolution of functions to be considered. Similarly, Liam McArthur’s amendment 13 would require the creation of a scheme for local authorities to request additional powers. Amendments 32 and 16 would require both schemes to be subject to affirmative procedure. Either one of amendments 27 or 13 would make an invaluable contribution to the bill. Accordingly, I will support both.

The bill was created on the basis that island communities have unique and varied needs, and it purports to strengthen those communities. However, it could do more by way of community empowerment and strengthening decision-making powers for those communities. The amendments in group 6 would create a mechanism whereby islands authorities could request additional powers, if they were needed. That would improve their ability to respond to specific local problems and to develop policy in line with communities’ needs and priorities. It would put power in the hands of communities and help to protect island communities against centralisation.

As was the case with regard to the amendments on retrospective island proofing requests, the case would have to be made for having the powers by the local authority. The amendments in group 6 do not seek to overburden already stretched councils with powers that they do not want, nor would they create a system in which any power could be devolved automatically on request. The systems that are proposed are practical and balanced.

In recent months, there has been much debate—rightly so—about so-called power grabs, and about which powers should or should not be devolved to this Parliament. However, our local councils are often forgotten in that debate. As more and more powers come to the Scottish Parliament from the United Kingdom Parliament, they should not automatically rest in Edinburgh, which can often seem distant from our island communities. If this Parliament genuinely believes in local democracy, it should support the modest mechanisms in the amendments in group 6, because they could make that happen for our island communities.

I move amendment 27.

Liam McArthur

I associate myself with Colin Smyth’s comments. As was the case with the earlier amendments on retrospective island proofing, I am conscious that he and I have our tanks parked on each other’s lawns. For the record, I state that I am not partisan with regard to which of the amendments Parliament chooses to support.

My amendment 13 and the consequential amendment 16 are an attempt to future proof the legislation. As Donald Dewar once wisely observed, devolution is a process, not an event. The bill should not and must not be the sum total of our ambition to empower our island communities. We must leave open the possibility and the option for local authorities, acting in the interests of the communities that they represent, to request additional functions and responsibilities; perhaps we must even encourage them to do so. The granting of any such request would not be a foregone conclusion. A robust case would need to be made, weighing up the pros and the cons. By the same token, any refusal by ministers would need to be based on sound evidence and be subject to appeal.

As with my approach on retrospective island proofing, I believe that amendment 13 is both reasonable and proportionate in meeting what has been a consistent demand from all three of the islands authorities. On that basis, I hope that it, or Colin Smyth’s amendment 27, will find support across the chamber.

Jamie Greene

I rise to give the Conservatives’ support for amendments 27 and 13. They make important points. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee took a lot of evidence throughout the progress of the bill, and much of the evidence that we got from people on islands was about decentralisation of power and decision making; it is felt that decisions that are made closer to communities are better. The amendments would merely facilitate schemes for requests for devolution of specific functions, and would not create a major new governance framework change. I do not think that the bill would be the place to do that.

The rationale behind the amendments in group 6 is an important one for us to consider in the context of what the bill is seeking to achieve. For that reason, Conservatives will support all the amendments in the group.

Stewart Stevenson

Colin Smyth said that islands

“have unique and varied needs”.

I absolutely agree. Jamie Greene talked about bringing decision making closer to the islands. However, having read amendments 27 and 13, I see quite the opposite effect: they would prevent the islands from deciding how to present a case for devolution, because they would mandate that we in the Scottish Parliament dictate to the islands how such a case must be constructed. If either amendment were to be agreed to, lawyers in local authorities would inevitably be required to verify that requests were being presented in the correct legal form.

Quite frankly, I trust local authorities and would much prefer that they would decide how to make such requests. Neither amendment 27 nor amendment 13 would create a new power for local authorities; in contrast, both amendments would handcuff local authorities by prescribing a particular way in which they must do things. I feel very uncomfortable about that approach.

Liam McArthur

Amendments 27 and 13 would put in place a process. Stewart Stevenson might take issue with the process, but the islands authorities support the amendments that Colin Smyth and I have lodged. The amendments would put in place a process that does not currently exist—a mechanism whereby additional powers could be devolved to local authorities. Therefore, unless one of the two amendments is agreed to, we will miss an opportunity to future proof the bill and to enable powers and responsibilities to be exercised more appropriately at local level, if that is desired.

Stewart Stevenson

I disagree. There is such a process—it exists. The whole bill will empower island communities and local authorities. We are talking about communities and local authorities; it is not just about saying what local authorities must do.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 27 even says that the Scottish ministers may make regulations

“specifying consultation to be undertaken by an authority before making a request”.

Although I acknowledge that what Tavish Scott had to say about consultation by HIAL had some merit, I am reluctant to put handcuffs on local authorities and, potentially, to place additional legal costs on them by prescribing what they must do, when they can do everything already. If neither amendment 27 nor amendment 13 is agreed to, no local authority or community will be prevented from requesting that the rules be changed to benefit the community.

John Finnie

Devolution of power is what the Greens are about, and there is a clear role for the recipients of devolved power and their communities. Lest we all think that such devolution is some kind of nirvana, I can tell members that when Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee members were out and about we heard that some communities are wary of powers going to local authorities.

I am aware of on-going reviews and work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the minister, but I do not think that we can wait for ever. The bill is the vehicle through which some of what we seek can be delivered. There are challenges, not least because half the recipient authorities contain landward areas and most if not all local authority areas include some coastline, in relation to which the authority might have aspirations. All things considered, a lot of work will be required, but that will be done during discussions about the regulations that will follow. Therefore, the Greens will support amendments 27 and 13.

Humza Yousaf

Amendment 13, from Liam McArthur, and amendment 27, from Colin Smyth, seek to allow islands authorities to request devolution of functions from the Scottish ministers. Amendments with that effect were debated at stage 2, and Colin Smyth has amended his version of the proposed approach, following their defeat in committee.

There are two main reasons why we will not support the amendments in group 6. First, we do not think that the bill is the right place to put the approach. Secondly, we think that the amendments could have negative unintended consequences for island communities, as opposed to councils.

In December, we took an important step on the community empowerment journey when, jointly with COSLA, we launched the local governance review. That is the right place for the discussion about the approach in amendments 27 and 13. The review’s purpose is to reform how Scotland is governed at local level. Our approach is built on work that others have done on the issue—for example, the COSLA-backed commission on strengthening local democracy in Scotland and the 2014 report on Parliament’s Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s inquiry into the flexibility and autonomy of local government.

The review’s focus on local governance requires consideration of a wide range of Scotland’s public services over which people may want more local control, and not just services that are provided by councils. Under the joint political oversight arrangements, the Government and COSLA leadership will meet next month to discuss an invitation to individual local authorities, community planning partnerships, regional partnerships and other public sector organisations to come forward with proposals for place-specific alternative approaches to governance. In last year’s programme for government, we made a commitment to support islands authorities that want, for example, to establish a single authority model of delivering local services, and we know that islands authorities are already actively working with local partners to develop concrete proposals.

The review is part of a process that will include a local democracy bill, which we are committed to introducing in this session of Parliament. That bill will provide a more appropriate legislative vehicle with which to make provision for the transfer of powers, because it will build on the collaborative work that will be undertaken throughout the review. It will also ensure full and proper consultation on such a significant issue as transfer of powers, which was not available to us when amendments have been discussed at stages 2 or 3 of the Islands (Scotland) Bill.

My second point is on local communities. Our starting point has always been the power that local communities hold rather than the powers that are held by institutions. Ultimately, we want power to be transferred to local communities, rather than to local government. I know from the many island visits that I have undertaken that, for some island communities, the local council seems as distant as Holyrood—on many islands that I have travelled to in the Argyll and Bute Council area, as well as Barra in the Western Isles, people have suggested that. We want to ensure that, ultimately, power is devolved to local communities, which should not be conflated with local government.

On Monday, the Scottish Government invited people the length and breadth of Scotland to join a conversation about community decision making in order to help to make public services more locally focused. That conversation, which is called “Democracy Matters—Your Community. Your Ideas. Your Future.”, will run for six months. We can expect many good ideas to emerge from the conversation with island communities. As members know, communities on the islands have often blazed the trail in community self-determination, whether that is community development trusts making use of renewables, community landowners driving inclusive economic development or the recent buyout of Ulva by the North West Mull Community Woodland Company.

Although my colleagues across Government and I agree with the spirit of the amendments in group 6, we believe that something as fundamental as transfer of powers needs to go through a proper and rigorous engagement and consultation process, which will best be achieved through the local governance review. I therefore cannot support the amendments. In particular, Colin Smyth’s amendment 27 focuses on promoting legislation. That may be too restrictive, because non-legislative avenues might better meet such requests from authorities, so the amendment could confine rather than liberate. As such, I ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment 27 and I ask Liam McArthur not to move his amendment 13.

The Presiding Officer

I call Colin Smyth to wind up and to say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 27.

Colin Smyth

I fundamentally disagree with Stewart Stevenson’s concerns and, more important, so do the islands authorities. It is strange for Stewart Stevenson to accuse islands authorities of trying to handcuff themselves.

My amendment 27 and Liam McArthur’s amendment 13 would put in place a mechanism that does not already exist to devolve more powers to our island communities. Both amendments should be supported, and I am sure that it would be possible to bring forward regulations to deal with both.

The minister said that there is no need for amendments that provide a mechanism to devolve more powers to our communities, because that will be dealt with in a possible future local democracy bill. My response is simply to say that if members support giving more power to our island communities, they should vote to provide those communities with a mechanism to request those powers. We should not wait for a bill that may or may not include such a provision some time in the future, and which Parliament may or may not pass. We have a duty to consider the legislation that is before us now and not what may come at a later date. I therefore urge members to support all the amendments in the group.

I press my amendment 27.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 62, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 27 agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

We are slightly ahead of schedule. We will take a short break.

15:45 Meeting suspended.  

15:52 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

We resume with group 7. Amendment 3, in the name of Tavish Scott, is grouped with amendment 3A.

Tavish Scott

Amendment 3 would create a “Shetland mapping requirement”. With a single vote, it would stop the practice—intensely annoying to islanders and with which they have put up for too long—of placing Shetland not in its correct place 200 miles to the north of Aberdeen, but in a box off the Scottish coast. Whether that is the Moray coast, the Orkney coast or any other coast, it is not the right coast. We will no longer accept the lazy interpretation of maps that we have put up with for so long, which has been the case with Governments of all political persuasions, including the one that I might have been involved in—it is best to fess up on that before the minister comes up with an example.

It is right that we get this correct, and this is why: just after stage 2, when we debated the issue fully and the minister rightly drew attention to the fact that the permanent secretary had addressed the Government with a circular intimating that maps were to be correct in future, I read Twitter the very next day—probably something that one should not do—and alighted on a tweet from the energy minister. I have a copy of it here. It was about renewable sources—it was all good stuff—but the import of the tweet was a map of Scotland that excluded Shetland altogether, which was on a Scottish Government news release. [Interruption.]

The Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy (Paul Wheelhouse)

I reassure Mr Scott that I have raised that issue with my officials and it has been addressed.

Tavish Scott

I am grateful for that, as—no doubt—are the minister’s officials.

John Mason

I have a lot of sympathy, because Shetland should not appear next to Aberdeen. However, does the member accept the reality that the scale of all maps of Scotland would have to be reduced and Shetland—and everywhere else—would appear smaller?

Tavish Scott

I am grateful to Mr Mason for his intervention, but that is the cartographer’s argument. That is the argument that the men and women of maps have made to me and, no doubt, to other members. I just do not buy it.

We have put up with this for a long time. The cartographers make an intellectually coherent argument, but if one lived in a different part of the country, or if one was not particularly happy with the BBC weather map, for example—some colleagues expressed that view during stage 2—members of all political persuasions would raise it and ask for it to be corrected. I understand intellectually the cartographer’s argument, but I just do not accept it. If the member represented Shetland, he would not accept it either.

I recognise that the minister has worked hard on this; I also recognise the manuscript amendment that he lodged today. When he speaks on amendment 3A, will he clarify the phrase

“provide in such manner as they consider appropriate”

the reason why Shetland cannot be shown in the correct place? Subject to that point, I am grateful for the support of colleagues across the parties in making sure that, when we pass an islands bill, we put the islands in the right place.

I move amendment 3.

Humza Yousaf

I know how important the issue is to Mr Scott and many other members, and I am sympathetic to his position and the spirit of his amendment. Any one of us as constituency MSPs would be concerned if our constituency was distorted on any map. I certainly would not like Glasgow Pollok to be misrepresented as being in the central belt or beside Edinburgh—heaven forfend. We can therefore all have sympathy with the spirit of Tavish Scott’s amendment and it is important that he has brought it to the debate.

In conversations that I had with Mr Scott subsequent to stage 2, I tried to highlight why I am not convinced that the bill is necessarily the best way of dealing with the issue. We now have a standing instruction with our publishing contractor to ensure that images of Scotland in future publications published by the Scottish Government should seek to portray accurately the geographic location of all Scotland’s islands, not just that of Shetland. My understanding is that there have been no further issues since then, but in shaming my colleague Mr Wheelhouse, Mr Scott made the point that these things sometimes happen.

I have had useful discussions with the member and with other members who represent island communities and are concerned about this issue and the ways in which we can reinforce the message. I have also written to public bodies to highlight the issue and ask that they, too, ensure that wherever possible they represent Scotland’s islands as accurately as possible in relation to the rest of Scotland.

I recognise the continued desire for recognition of the issue in statute, specifically in relation to Shetland. I therefore looked closely at amendment 3 and the changes in the proposal from that in Tavish Scott’s stage 2 amendment, in particular the leeway offered when an authority would be “unable to comply” with the mapping requirement. While some flexibility in that type of legal duty is a welcome improvement, “unable to comply” is still a high bar to reach and it could have the unintended consequence of making the duty quite inflexible in many cases. I know that flexibility was a specific concern for the committee at stage 2. We do not want too inflexible a requirement. There might be good reasons for an authority not to comply; indeed, it might even want to make Shetland disproportionately larger on the map, for whatever reason.

Amendment 3A therefore suggests a slightly different test for the flexibility that we are looking for: when ministers or a public authority consider that there are reasons not to comply, they may not follow the mapping requirement, although they must still provide information about those reasons. I hope that that reassures Tavish Scott.

The change proposed in amendment 3A is small, but I think that it is helpful; it will allow more discretion and flexibility when the circumstances dictate, such as allowing different maps to be produced when that will help the reader or the authority to make a particular point about Scotland. Compliance with the mapping requirement should remain of a fairly high standard, and it should take into account that a public authority has a duty to act reasonably and will not be able to just ignore the basic requirement without good reasons.

Amendment 3A also spells out more clearly who is covered by the duty, specifically identifying Scottish ministers and local authorities without limiting the Scottish public authorities that would be covered by amendment 3.

I am happy to support amendment 3 and I ask members to also support amendment 3A in my name.

I move amendment 3A.

16:00  

Peter Chapman

As a group, the Conservatives note Tavish Scott’s amendment. I guess that the issue has aggravated many people in Shetland and beyond over the years. However, having been contacted by several professional cartographers—to return to John Mason’s argument—from a research institute in my region, I have some concerns over amendment 3. It would mean reducing the size of the rest of Scotland by something like 40 per cent, because there is just so much water surrounding Shetland, thus losing much of the detail in any maps that we produce. I therefore support the minister’s amendment 3A, which states that, where that cannot be taken into account, an explanation can be published as to why. That gives flexibility, which I welcome.

We therefore support amendment 3A, in the minister’s name—the amendment to Tavish Scott’s amendment—as it makes the best out of an impractical amendment.

Stewart Stevenson

I very much welcome amendment 3, in the name of Tavish Scott. In particular, I welcome his use of the words:

“in a manner that accurately and proportionately represents their geographical location in relation to the rest of Scotland.”

We might even, for the first time, see the relationship that the Shetland Islands have to near neighbours Norway, which most maps utterly fail to show, despite Shetland being closer to Norway than to many significant cities in the United Kingdom.

When I was at school, Mercator’s projection was what produced globes and maps, because the earth is round and a map has to be put on a flat surface. I recommend to the minister that he consider using a Lambert International Organization for Standardization conformal projection, which would produce not a map but a chart. The reason that that is important is that, whenever one lays a ruler on it, one gets the correct distances between any point on that chart. If it is a chart, not a map, it is impossible for the proportion of Shetland to be other than accurately and proportionately represented. In the implementation of the issue, I encourage the minister to consider that option, even though it will not be legally required if, as I hope we do, we agree to the amendments.

The Presiding Officer

I call Tavish Scott to wind up on amendment 3, and then I will call the minister to wind up on amendment 3A.

Tavish Scott

I am grateful to colleagues for their support, and to the Conservatives for their change in position on the amendment. It strikes me as ironic that Peter Chapman, being from the north-east, might oppose getting Shetland in the right place. I do not know how many times, when I ran a farm in a previous life, his colleagues from the north-east would come up to buy lambs and would complain about there being 200 miles of sea to cross before those lambs got to Mr Chapman’s neighbours. If we were where some of Mr Chapman’s maps have us, the transport distance for our lambs would be much shorter, and we would be paid £5 more a head, but that is a matter for a different debate.

I hope that the minister was listening to Stewart Stevenson. I did not follow all of what he said, but I absolutely take his point, even if I did not necessarily get it. It was, nevertheless, an important lesson for us all. The serious point is that I recognise what the Government has done in this area, and I hope that the minister will accept that there would have to be a very good reason—not necessarily for me, but for those people at home who feel incredibly strongly about this—for a public agency or an authority to say, “No, we’re not doing it that way, we’re going to do it in a different way,” and then still keep us in a box off the Moray coast. Having said that, I recognise what the Government has done to bring the issue to a sensible conclusion, and I will certainly support the amendment in the minister’s name.

Humza Yousaf

There is nothing for me to add other than to thank members for their contributions. We have found a sensible way forward. I was going to use a phrase from “Dirty Dancing” and say, “Nobody puts Shetland in a corner”, but that is exactly where we are going to end up putting it on the map.

Amendment 3A agreed to.

Amendment 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14—Number of councillors in wards with inhabited islands

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 8. Amendment 29, in the name of Jamie Greene, is the only amendment in the group.

Jamie Greene

A big part of the bill is about the creation of one and two-member wards in local authorities on islands. We know that the needs of island communities can be quite different from those of mainland communities. The current rules under the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland on the creation of electoral wards have two key recommendations. One is that local authority wards should comprise only three or four members. The bill seeks to address that with the potential creation of one-member and two-member wards, which is, I think, welcome across the chamber. The second recommendation is to do with the principle of parity. Across each individual local authority, the ratio of electors per councillor should be the same. That is not exactly the case in all wards. The commission recommends that wards should have no more than 10 per cent variation from parity with one other. There is not a standard Scotland-wide number of electors per councillor.

Councils are divided into five categories, depending on the degrees of rurality and deprivation in their areas. Let us look at the councils that are impacted by the bill. The three island councils have a ratio of 800 electors per councillor; Argyll and Bute Council has a ratio of 2,800 electors per councillor; and North Ayrshire Council, which is in my region, has a ratio of 3,000 electors per councillor. The current rules dictate that there must be the same number of electors per councillor across the entire local authority area. The problem with that is that it fails to recognise that islands may have degrees of rurality and deprivation that are very different from those of the adjoining mainland areas in the same local authority area. That is very much the case in North Ayrshire.

My amendment 29 seeks to allow the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to alter the electors-to-member ratio in an island ward in a local authority area that contains islands and mainland areas. That does not apply to all island authorities. The amendment has been carefully worded to affect only three authorities—North Ayrshire Council, Argyll and Bute Council and Highland Council—and its effect would be to revoke the rules that require parity across the entire local authority area. It would allow the commission to consider arguments that are based on geography and local ties, for example, for a different electors-per-councillor ratio to apply in island wards, and any decision on that would ultimately be for the commission. Other mainland parts of the local authority area would be unaffected. The important thing to note is that due process must always be followed with those requests.

I have consulted North Ayrshire Council on the specific anomaly, and I believe that there is a broad consensus of support in that council and its electorate across partisan views.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene

I will do so shortly, but I first want to further clarify what the amendment would do.

I would not want the bill to rightfully allow for the creation of one-member and two-member wards with the net effect of a reduction in representation on the Isle of Arran, for example. Currently, the 3,000 electors per councillor ratio would mean that, if we created an Arran-only ward, there would potentially be one councillor there. For the people of Arran to have two councillors, the ratio would need to be changed to around 1,800 to one. That would be a great variance from parity with other wards in that council area, and there is no precedent for doing that. In fact, I believe that the percentage of disparity would be such that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland would be unable to approve that. Allowing for such a change is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

Gail Ross

Jamie Greene said that he consulted North Ayrshire Council but, obviously, the proposal also affects Argyll and Bute Council and Highland Council. Has he consulted those two other councils?

Jamie Greene

Yes. Last week, I had a very long conversation on the phone with the leader of Highland Council, who had questions about the wording of the amendment. I am happy to tell members that one of the concerns that were raised was whether the change would be automatic across all the island authorities. If one island in a local authority area made a request to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland and the change was agreed to, that would not have an automatic consequence across all the other island authorities. Things would still be done on a case-by-case basis. The current process of applying to the commission would still apply. All that the amendment would do would be to allow the commission the power to create a disparity that does not already exist. Therefore, there has been consultation with other authorities.

In the Argyll and Bute example, where there are a number of smaller islands with small populations, at the moment there is nothing stopping the council from making representations to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to create a ward under the normal process. What my amendment would specifically allow is the creation of one-member and two-member wards where the ratio is different. It would be a shame if we passed the bill with the result that we had no tangible changes for some of our largest island communities. I therefore ask members from across the political spectrum to support amendment 29.

I move amendment 29.

Neil Bibby (West Scotland) (Lab)

I speak in support of amendment 29, in Jamie Greene’s name. As has been indicated, amendment 29 relates not just to the bill but to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Schedule 6 to the 1973 act sets out that the ratio of electorate per councillor should be the same in each ward in a local authority. However, as Jamie Greene has said, there is a strong case for ensuring that the bill allows for exemptions to that ratio for not just all-island wards but all wards that consist wholly or partly of one or more islands.

North Ayrshire Council, whose area includes the island communities of Arran and the Cumbraes, supports amending section 14 of the bill. The council says that, to make the most of section 14, there must be flexibility around the underlying ratio. In North Ayrshire, where 95 per cent of the population lives on the mainland, the ratio of population per councillor for the authority as a whole is driven by the mainland’s profile of rurality and its demographics. However, the bill’s proposals for island proofing should allow the unique characteristics of island communities to be taken into account. North Ayrshire Council believes that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland should be able to consider an island ratio of electorate per councillor that reflects the profile of the island, not the mainland. However, that will not be possible under the bill’s current wording.

Amendment 29 would simply give the commission power to consider arguments that islands that have widely different demographics from their adjoining mainland should be able to have a ratio of electorate per councillor that reflects their unique circumstances. In practice, and with all other things being equal, an unamended section 14, as Jamie Greene said, could result in Arran getting one fewer resident councillor than it gets at present, because of the application of the ratio. That is why North Ayrshire Council believes that the commission should have more flexibility. As Jamie Greene said, the commission currently has only limited power to deviate from electoral parity and aims to restrict any deviation to 10 per cent. The commission does not have power, as things stand, to propose a variation from parity of 36 per cent in Arran or 63 per cent in Cumbrae, which is required to island proof the democracy of North Ayrshire and create a two-member ward for Arran and a one-member ward for the Cumbraes. That is why amendment 29 is required.

North Ayrshire Council has made compelling arguments in support of amendment 29, which would strengthen democracy and accountability in island communities in my region. I am happy to support amendment 29.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

As far back as 26 September last year, North Ayrshire Council asked me, as a constituency member, to lodge an amendment like amendment 29 to increase the number of North Ayrshire councillors from 33 to 35 by having an additional councillor for the island of Cumbrae and an additional councillor for the island of Arran. I declined to support the council’s position and explained my reasons for that, which I will share with members shortly. However, I am curious as to why Mr Greene has moved amendment 29, given that North Ayrshire Council Tories made a right song and dance about what they alleged to be a waste of public money when an increase from 30 to 33 councillors was mooted prior to the 2017 local authority elections.

Nowhere in North Ayrshire Council’s briefing on the proposed amendment is it mentioned that current legislation already allows the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to depart from electoral parity where “special geographical considerations” apply. Paragraph 2 of the relevant rule states:

“The strict application of the rule stated in paragraph 1(2) may be departed from in any area where special geographical considerations appear to render a departure desirable.”

I support single-member wards for island communities far from the mainland and argued for that, in relation to Arran, when the Local Government and Communities Committee took evidence from Joe FitzPatrick, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, and Derek Mackay, the finance secretary. Both ministers expressed sympathy for that argument. However, I am also in complete agreement with schedule 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which states that there should be parity across any local authority area. The Western Isles has 674 voters per councillor and North Ayrshire has 3,294. What is important is that each vote within the local authority area is of roughly the same value.

16:15  

It would be completely undemocratic for a vote in Arran, which has two councillors for 3,904 electors, to be worth almost twice what a vote in Saltcoats is worth, or for a vote in Cumbrae, where there are only 1,098 electors, to be worth three times more than a vote in Largs—Cumbrae is an 8 mile ferry trip from Largs. Other areas of Scotland, such as Argyll and Bute, would also have their arrangements distorted if the amendment is agreed to.

One of my constituents has contacted me to support the view expressed by the previous two speakers. Both Arran and Cumbrae voted strongly for the Scottish National Party in recent years, so backing such an amendment could benefit my party electorally. Nevertheless, because it breaks the principle of vote parity within a local authority, I urge Mr Greene to withdraw amendment 29. If he does not, I urge members to vote against it.

Humza Yousaf

Notwithstanding that it could benefit us politically, I will not be supporting Jamie Greene’s amendment 29 for a couple of reasons, which Kenny Gibson articulated very well. I will briefly go through some of what I said at stage 2. For North Ayrshire, the trouble is that it would potentially mean there would be two different ratios for the islands of Arran and Cumbrae. Amendment 29 seeks to disapply the rule requiring electoral parity for wards that consist wholly or partly of one or more inhabited islands, in local authorities that have wards both on islands and on the mainland of Scotland

I agree that the bill as it stands does not change the priority of electoral parity in the relevant legislation, but the current legislation already allows the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to depart from electoral parity where special geographical considerations apply, as Kenny Gibson said. At stage 1, Jamie Greene asked the chair of the commission, Ronnie Hinds, a question on whether there should be an ability to change the ratio. I will quote Mr Hinds directly, as his answer is important.

“Our feeling is that, in the spirit of what the bill is seeking to achieve, the ability to have a choice between one or two-member wards and three or four-member wards in the island areas would probably get us to a position comparable to what is being sought. For example, we can readily construe a means by which we would change the current representation in Arran. That might mean that a ratio applied in Arran that was different from the ratio that applied in the rest of North Ayrshire, but to achieve such an end there would be no need for a new provision in the bill; it could be done by means of what is being offered in the bill.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 27 September 2017; c 28.]

That statement shows that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland is willing to look at what could be done for each local authority area and to work flexibly. Whether it will be able to go as far as Jamie Greene and North Ayrshire Council want is another question.

Gail Ross’s intervention was important, because she asked whether there had been consultation with Argyll and Bute Council and Highland Council. Jamie Greene talked about some of the concerns those local authorities had raised, but did not indicate whether they supported the amendment.

Argyll and Bute, for example, has 23 inhabited islands. No doubt many of them will at some point argue the case for having more island councillors, and the impact could become onerous. Some very small islands could argue the case for having their own councillor. What is to stop an island with only two people living there asking for their own councillor? Electoral reviews can already be contentious and disputed and I am not sure that amendment 29 would reduce the potential for those disagreements.

Also, as Kenny Gibson highlighted in his contribution, I am not sure that the mainland parts of a local authority area will be unaffected. If the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland maintains its approach of determining council size and then determining the wards, increasing the number of island councillors may result in a decrease in the number on the mainland. Does Jamie Greene think that that will happen? Does he have a view on how we should respond to that?

If the commission does not take that approach to council size and there are more councillors on the islands, it could lead to an increase in the total number of councillors. Taking the example of Argyll and Bute, where there are 23 islands, there could be up to 23 additional councillors, with all the associated costs and so on.

Stage 3 of the bill process is a difficult point at which to introduce new proposals such as this, because we cannot reflect further on those important questions and amend the bill later. The issue would perhaps be better addressed through appropriate local government legislation, which I have already said will be coming before Parliament, so I ask Mr Greene to withdraw amendment 29. If he does not, I urge members not to support it.

Jamie Greene

I thank the majority of members for their input on this group. Neil Bibby made some valid points. He perhaps put the argument in a slightly different way, but he made some important points.

The minister said that in his view the commission is comfortable that it can already make these ratio changes, but at the moment the precedent is for a difference of no more than 10 or 15 per cent. We are talking about a disparity of around 63 per cent in the example of Cumbrae and there is no precedent in that regard. There has been no confirmation on the record that the commission would be willing to make that type of ratio change. My amendment would allow it to do so.

On the idea that every island in Argyll and Bute, for example, will tomorrow suddenly request its own councillor, I point out that they could do that today if they wanted to. The amendment would not change the process that would have to be gone through, either today or after the bill passes. However, it would ensure that if island councils made representations to the commission for an alteration, the commission would have the ability to create those member wards. There would be no deviation from existing due process and practices. There was a suggestion that the councils will suddenly want 23 extra councillors, but that is not the case at all.

I do not think that it is worth spending a huge amount of time reflecting on Kenny Gibson’s comments. Given that he sought to make cheap political points out of a very important bill, those comments do not deserve any more of my time. Mr Gibson might not think that the votes of Arran and Cumbrae are worth it, but we on the Conservative benches absolutely do. That is why I ask members to support my amendment.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 disagreed to.

After section 15

Amendment 13 moved—[Liam McArthur].

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 62, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

After section 20

The Presiding Officer

We come to group 9. Amendment 14, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Humza Yousaf

The purpose of amendment 14 is to amend the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 to allow the Scottish ministers to delegate regional marine planning to a single local authority in the three island Scottish marine regions of the Orkney Islands, the outer Hebrides and the Shetland Isles in order to carry out the functions related to preparing a regional marine plan.

As it stands, section 12(2) of the 2010 act states that any council or public authority cannot have outright delegated authority on its own; there must be another person nominated by the Scottish ministers. Marine Scotland has been working closely with Orkney Islands Council to consider the options for creating a partnership there and to try to address some of the issues that the council has had in finding a partner for the purpose of marine planning.

The difficulties in Orkney were raised by the local authority in its written submission on the bill at stage 1. Colin Smyth lodged an amendment at stage 2 to try to address the issue and I thank him for doing so. I gave a commitment then to liaise with him and come back with an appropriate amendment to address the technical requirements of this issue at stage 3. The result is amendment 14, which I lodged after discussions with Colin Smyth on what was quite a technical drafting exercise. The amendment provides for the situation where, if there is difficulty in establishing a partner for marine planning for an island council in Orkney, the Western Isles or the Shetland Isles, it may be appropriate to allow for delegation to a council as a single entity. The amendment will not affect any of the other eight Scottish marine regions.

Even if the local authority were to be delegated to as a single entity, there is a legal requirement—under section 12(5) of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010—that the ministerial direction on marine planning includes a statement of the reasons for delegating to a public authority instead of to a group.

There is also a requirement under section 12(5) of the 2010 act for the public authority to consult with others and

“to have regard to any representations made”

when preparing a regional marine plan, so although the local authority will take the lead in the regional marine plan, others will be able to have their say. I consider that these measures provide the remedy that is needed here.

I move amendment 14.

Peter Chapman

We support amendment 14 in the name of the minister. We support the islands having greater authority and flexibility in relation to their marine licensing powers and the ability to allow regional marine plans.

Colin Smyth

As the minister said, his amendment 14 concerns an issue that I raised at stage 2. I thank the minister for making good on his commitment to lodge an amendment at stage 3 to address that issue. Island authorities can often face particular challenges in finding the required partner for the delegation of marine planning functions, preventing those local authorities from being granted those functions.

Amendment 14 provides an exemption, allowing Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles to carry out functions for regional marine planning as single public authorities if they are able to demonstrate difficulty in finding a suitable partner.

That reflects the unique problems that those local authorities can have in that regard and ensures that they are able to experience the benefits of delegated marine planning functions in spite of the barriers that they face. That will improve efficiency and promote the integration of terrestrial and marine planning. It will therefore be no surprise to learn that I fully support amendment 14.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Before section 21

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 10. Amendment 31, in the name of Jamie Greene, is the only amendment in the group.

Jamie Greene

Briefly, amendment 31 is about having a report on the operation of the act. The amendment says that ministers must prepare

“a report on the operation of this Act”

and, more importantly, that ministers must consult the island

“authorities listed in the schedule”.

I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, with a perhaps slightly onerous timeline of one year. That may have been a little bit optimistic, given the timescales for the introduction of a new bill. After some discussion with the minister and his team, I am pleased to be able to bring back a revised amendment with the intention that we review and report on the operation of the act after four years.

I think that it is right that this act receives some scrutiny in the next parliamentary session and that island authorities can be involved in that scrutiny to make sure that the act achieves its intentions.

I move amendment 31.

Humza Yousaf

I will simply say that I very much welcome this amendment. Jamie Greene lodged an amendment at stage 2 to include a report on the act. Although his timescales were a little short, I was happy to agree in principle. We had good and useful discussions in the lead-up to stage 3. Amendment 31 requires that, four years after royal assent, the Scottish ministers must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the act and must consult public authorities and others as appropriate in preparing that report. That is a sensible proposal with an eminently sensible timescale and I am happy to support amendment 31.

Amendment 31 agreed to.

Section 21—Regulations

Amendment 15 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Amendment 33 moved—[Colin Smyth].

16:30  

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 33 disagreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Liam McArthur].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 62, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Schedule—Duties in relation to island communities: relevant authorities

Amendment 34 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes consideration of the Islands (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

At this stage, I have to make a determination. As members will be aware, I am required, under the standing orders, to decide whether, in my view, any provision in the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system or franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of the Islands (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter, and therefore the bill does not require a supermajority at stage 3.

Before we move on to the debate, we will have a short suspension.

16:33 Meeting suspended.  

16:41 On resuming—