Scottish Parliament, 17 June 2015

348 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Business Motion

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Good afternoon, everyone. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S4M-13530, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 and 2: 30 minutes

Groups 3 to 6: 55 minutes

Groups 7 to 10: 1 hour 20 minutes

Groups 11 to 14: 1 hour 50 minutes

Groups 15 and 16: 2 hours 35 minutes

Groups 17 to 20: 3 hours 10 minutes

Groups 21: 3 hours 40 minutes

Groups 22 to 27: 4 hours 20 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

Scottish Cot Death Trust

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-12916, in the name of Gil Paterson, on the 30th anniversary of the Sudden Cot Death Trust. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament acknowledges that 2015 marks the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Scottish Cot Death Trust; understands that the aims of the trust have remained consistent during this time; notes that it is committed to funding medical research in the hope of finding an answer to why babies and young children die, reducing the number of deaths by promoting the “reduce the risk” message and supporting people who have experienced such a tragedy; believes that it carries out vitally important work, not only by raising public awareness and through the use of multiagency professionals, but also in its support for parents, sometimes for years, who have lost a healthy child without explanation; understands that the trust works in partnership with NHS boards to provide the Next Infant Support Programme for bereaved parents in Clydebank and Milngavie and across Scotland who go on to have further children; believes that the trust offers apnoea monitors as well as a bespoke support service throughout pregnancy and for the first year after birth; notes that it has worked with the Scottish Government in producing the leaflet, Reduce the Risk, which highlights safe sleeping positions and the associated factors that are considered to raise the risk of sudden unexpected infant death; further notes that the leaflet provides information such as the view that, in the first six months of life, the safest place for the babies to sleep is in their own cot in the parental bedroom; understands that ways to reduce risk include avoiding sleeping on a sofa or chair with a baby, not smoking during pregnancy or around a baby after birth, avoiding sharing a bed with a baby if either parent is excessively tired, is a smoker, has drunk alcohol or has taken any medication that might cause drowsiness and avoiding letting a baby sleep on a surface that is neither firm nor flat, including infant swings, beanbags, bouncer chairs and infant car seats; understands that, although such seats can be fitted onto a pram chassis, they are not suitable places for infants to sleep; commends the trust on ensuring that these points are the main thrust of its 30th anniversary message to all parents, and wishes it every success in promoting this.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Gil Paterson on securing this debate on the Scottish Cot Death Trust.

As members from across the chamber have done, I commend the trust on its work over the past 30 years, as it passes this important milestone. Since 1985, the trust has raised funds for research into the causes of cot death, educated the public, raised awareness of cot death and worked tirelessly to improve support for bereaved families. This afternoon is Parliament’s opportunity to thank the trust for the contribution that it has made over the past 30 years. The Scottish Cot Death Trust is a leader in its field. It promotes healthy infancies, informs policy, celebrates best practice and offers friendship and support to families who have, sadly, lost a child to cot death.

The debate also gives us an opportunity to remind ourselves that the trust’s work is not done and that our work is not done. It continues and it must go on. As the trust says on its website,

“A baby dies every nine days in Scotland from Cot Death”,

and there are parents who will never know fully the reasons why their apparently healthy baby died. Those parents deserve some answers and some understanding of how it has come to be that their child has been lost.

For new parents and their families, for health professionals and for society as a whole, we need to do more to understand the risks to infants’ health. The better we understand those risks, the more we can do to reduce them and, I hope, prevent tragedies in the future.

The motion that is before us provides a healthy summary of the key advice and recommendations that the Scottish Cot Death Trust has developed in conjunction with the Scottish Government. It reminds us that the safest place for a new baby to sleep is in a cot in the parents’ bedroom. It reminds us to avoid sleeping on a sofa or an armchair with a baby. It reminds parents to avoid sharing a bed with a baby if they have been drinking, are overly tired or have been taking medication that causes tiredness. It reminds us to avoid letting a baby sleep on a surface that is neither firm nor flat—for example, infant swings, baby-bouncer chairs or bean bags. That is all helpful advice, but it would not have been common or widely circulated back in 1985, when the trust was first established.

I understand that the information that the trust and the Government have produced is now available in an easy-read format. That is a welcome development; I stress the need for that advice and, indeed, all public health advice, to be as accessible as possible.

I want to pay tribute to the donors, fundraisers and volunteers who have supported the trust as it has carried out its work over the past 30 years. We have to remember that charitable organisations such as the trust would not be able to deliver their assistance and services without the kindness and generosity of their supporters. Some 86 per cent of the charity’s income comes from donations from the public, and from the organisation’s fundraising events and activities: the family fun days, fundraising balls, sponsored sky dives, marathons and 10km runs that ensure that the trust continues to be a vibrant organisation, and not just a competent provider of services but an energetic and efficient champion of healthy infancies.

Every parent and grandparent knows the joy that a child can bring to a family and how a new baby can change their lives for ever. They know the eagerness and anticipation that the family feels when a baby is on the way—the planning, the preparations and the decoration. They know how a baby can take over and become the focus of everyone’s attention and emotions. I cannot imagine what some people have had to endure: the feeling of shock and loss that comes when a new baby—a new addition to the family—dies without explanation, within a few months or even just a few weeks of their birth. My heart goes out to any parent who has ever been in that position. It might be some comfort to know that there is an organisation, in the form of the Scottish Cot Death Trust, that is there for them. However, it must be our shared ambition for the future to ensure that no more parents lose children to cot death. We must understand cot death and we must prevent it.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Let me start by thanking Gil Paterson for bringing this important subject to Parliament. There are very few of us who will not, at some stage in our life, meet a death; it is an inevitable part of being here in the first place. When the death is that of a child—of someone who is younger than we are—we feel that death most acutely. That is not simply because it reminds us of our own mortality; it is also because, of course, we experience the loss of someone who is precious to us.

One of my personal interests is genealogy. I happen to have been doing a longitudinal study of the St Giles parish in Edinburgh—of which Parliament is just on the edge—of 150 years ago. At that time, 150 years ago, in this relatively well-off parish, 50 per cent of children did not reach the age of 10, and half of those who died, died before the age of one.

Today we have vastly improved our care and our ability to deal with a range of conditions and diseases that affect our young. That fact throws into more stark relief the sudden unexpected and often unexplained deaths that come under the general heading “cot death”. There is no single cause of cot death, and we do not always satisfactorily identify the cause of the death.

As the number of young children who die has diminished, the pain and the sense of guilt that parents can feel when it happens has substantially increased. My father, who was a general practitioner, described bereavement in five stages: denial, which is often very short and in which the person does not accept what has happened; blaming oneself, in which the person blames themselves for something that they did not do; blaming others, because things were not done; depression; and finally accommodation, in which, it is hoped, the person comes to terms with the death and puts the happy memories that they have of the person who departed into some context that they will carry for the rest of their life.

A child even of the briefest period on this earth will leave memories for their parents and for all who have known them. I have not been in the fortunate position of being a father, but I am told that I am a relatively well-trained uncle and now great-uncle, godfather and, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, a great-great-uncle. Although I have not personally experienced fatherhood, I have watched and stood with those who have been parents. I have seen their pride and excitement when they bring in a new life that will take over from those of us who are, perhaps, now contemplating more acutely than we once did our own mortality.

As cot death has become more important as a reason why young people do not make it into adulthood, the importance of having the right kind of support in place has substantially increased. For that reason the Scottish Cot Death Trust is very much to be congratulated for its work. It is draining to support a person who is in mental despair and who has experienced loss. It is expensive, because it takes time to provide counselling to people—not just a pill for a week, but support, often for an extended period.

Over the past 30 years, we have seen the work of the Scottish Cot Death Trust supporting parents across Scotland and, I understand, working with people beyond Scotland. As Gil Paterson’s motion makes clear, in his constituency the trust is supporting the next infant support programme for bereaved parents. The motion mentions bespoke services through pregnancy and for the first year after birth, including the provision of sleep apnoea monitors.

There is one little thing that we need to think about. It is right and proper that we provide advice on how to minimise the occurrence of cot death, and Margaret McCulloch highlighted quite a few of the pieces of advice that exist. However, it is equally important that we reassure parents that it is not their fault that their child dies from cot death. They may have followed all the advice or may not have been aware of some of the advice, but it will almost certainly not—in 99 cases out of 100, and probably more—be the parents’ fault. That is precisely why the Scottish Cot Death Trust has to exist: it must reassure and support parents who do not know what more they could have done, when the answer may be that there was nothing more they could have done.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I place on record my thanks and congratulations to Gil Paterson on securing this afternoon’s debate to mark the 30th anniversary of the Scottish Cot Death Trust. I recognise the work of Lynsay Allan—the trust’s executive director—and her colleagues, who have made such an incredible difference to the families who have faced such a terrible tragedy. I also praise the contribution of the chair of the trustees, Dr John McClure, who I met in Florence at a world conference on sudden infant death syndrome more than 10 years ago.

As we have heard, one baby dies of cot death every nine days and about 40 infants die suddenly and unexpectedly in Scotland each year. Over the past 30 years, more than 1,500 children have died suddenly and unexpectedly, and no definitive cause of death can be found.

My youngest son, Liam, died from cot death in 1991. He was eight months old. I remember the horror and trauma of the moment, which have never left me. A series of images are frozen in time: the ambulance; the faces of the doctors and nurses at accident and emergency; the police; and later, the cold and remote manner of the pathologist during the post mortem. All that contrasted with the support of friends, family and neighbours—the phone calls, visits and hundreds of cards of condolence.

Many other bereaved parents have told me of the tremendous support that they received from the Scottish Cot Death Trust during the crucial first few months after their loss. That was certainly my experience.

As we have heard, the number of deaths has declined since the 1990s. They are now recorded as sudden unexpected deaths in infancy. Such deaths can occur in every part of Scotland and in all social strata. Most occur in the first year of the child’s life, and they can occur whenever an infant is sleeping. Twice as many boys die as girls, and second or later-born children are more at risk, as are pre-term, low-weight babies.

What can the trust do? As we heard, it has invested more than £3 million in research and development and has educated thousands of parents and professionals about cot death and how to reduce the risk. It has a range of resources that provide support, home visiting, counselling and befriending services. I particularly highlight the important work that is done with apnoea monitors and resuscitation training for parents.

Every bereaved parent reacts differently. Some may want contact support to last longer than others do. When I meet parents through the Scottish Cot Death Trust, they tell me that, having received support, they are better able to support their surviving children and to search for help elsewhere, through a general practitioner or private counselling.

At times of acute grief, it is easy to forget about surviving children, grandparents, aunts and uncles—and, with older children, those children’s pals. I praise the trust for its case review study, commissioned in 2000, which called for a multidisciplinary approach to get all the agencies to work together to minimise distress to families. I understand that NHS Quality Improvement Scotland attempted to roll that out throughout Scotland.

Losing a young, healthy baby is one of the greatest traumas that parents could ever face. For 30 years, the Scottish Cot Death Trust has been counselling, supporting and educating parents, as well as supporting the professional agencies that work with the families. Let us never forget its pioneering research work. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all who are involved with the trust—the befrienders, the fundraisers and the health professionals. The work that they do is truly outstanding and makes a difference to many families. We honour their contribution and commitment.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Gil Paterson on securing today’s debate and I pay tribute to his consistent work in the Parliament to support the Scottish Cot Death Trust. I am pleased to join other members in commending the excellent efforts of the Scottish Cot Death Trust—the only cot death charity in Scotland—and all those who work, volunteer or fundraise for it.

Despite being extremely rare, cot death—or sudden infant death syndrome—is still the most common cause of death for infants between one month and 12 months old in Scotland. A child dies from cot death every nine days.

As the father of six children, four of whom are still at school, I find it difficult to imagine the extent of the pain and darkness of losing a child. No parent should experience that, but the loss of a healthy infant suddenly and without explanation must be absolutely devastating and beyond heartbreaking. That is why all MSPs should be grateful that the Scottish Cot Death Trust is there to support bereaved parent constituents in such circumstances.

The trust’s website is a fantastic resource for parents and their families. I know several mothers and fathers who have suffered the awful trauma of a cot death, and the grief of parents over the loss of a baby or toddler is so intense that it is terribly difficult for relatives and friends to begin to know what they can say or do to alleviate that grief. Margaret McCulloch and other members have rightly highlighted that aspect.

Although it seems unlikely that all cot deaths can be prevented, the risk factors that are associated with cot death can be reduced. Like other members, I urge prospective parents to look at the “Reduce the risk of cot death” leaflet, which is clear and helpful and offers parents-to-be straightforward advice on such things as placing babies on their backs to sleep, breastfeeding, dummy use and keeping babies away from smoke.

Reducing risk factors, primarily by encouraging parents to place babies on their backs to sleep, has in the decades since the 1991 back to sleep campaign helped to gradually but notably decrease the incidence of cot death. However, we must continue to make progress in that direction.

As Gil Paterson’s motion makes clear, the Scottish Cot Death Trust not only supports bereaved parents and educates the public and healthcare professionals about cot death and ways of reducing the risks but is committed to funding medical research into cot death. That is very much to be welcomed. Since the trust was established in 1985, it has invested more than £3 million in research projects locally, nationally and internationally. We still know relatively little about the causes of cot death, and that is what we have to find out. Why, for example, are premature babies more affected, and why are second-born and later-born infants at greater risk than first-born infants?

I again warmly welcome today’s debate. On behalf of my party, I congratulate the Scottish Cot Death Trust on its 30th anniversary and thank all those who are involved in the trust for the work that they do on behalf of all our constituents. I wish them every success as they continue their critical and valuable work in the years ahead.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I join other members in congratulating Gil Paterson on bringing a debate on this important topic to the chamber again. I have no negative feelings about the fact that we are debating it again, as it is important that we continue to consider such an important subject.

The context of the Scottish Cot Death Trust’s 30th anniversary is a good one, and I join Gil Paterson in saying thank you to the trust and offering it our gratitude for the very important work that it has done over the years. The high-quality support that the trust provides through counselling and education is extremely valuable. As David Stewart said, we commend the hard work and dedication of those involved, because that support has a profound effect on those families who have been affected by cot death.

As a doctor, I dealt with families experiencing cot death, and it was difficult. In the early days, in the 1970s and 1980s, cot death was managed by people coming forward from various silos. A health visitor provided some support, but the police and a pathologist were also involved, and the different elements were not connected up. The multidisciplinary approach that we have had—as David Stewart mentioned—from 2000 onwards is critical in managing such situations. The police are now infinitely better at dealing with cot death than they were, and that is very welcome.

Apart from dealing with patients, I have a family member who suffered sudden infant death syndrome—or sudden unexpected death, as it is now called.

Cot death is the form of unexplained death that we are discussing today, and it is critical that it is differentiated in the public mind from other things that may occur; the worst end of that spectrum is infanticide or Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy. There is sometimes suspicion about those things out there among the public when an infant death occurs. As Stewart Stevenson said, when families have that experience and have feelings of guilt and self-blame, the whole thing gets very confused.

The educational role that the trust provides is critical. The summit that it held to foster collaboration was important. It is important to get a range of health professionals to interact with the family, for example nursing during pregnancy, when it is a second pregnancy, but also bereavement and other counselling. The toolkit provided is helpful to professionals and families alike.

There is a lot of information. None of us forgets the back to sleep campaign, which members have mentioned. It was one of the nicest slogans because it was so simple and so welcome and it made a fundamental difference. It seems extraordinary that it took until the 1990s for medical researchers to discover such a simple thing that made such a huge difference.

However, that does not remove the fact that we still have one death every nine days. It is critical that research goes on, because we still do not understand cot death. There is a lot of research that indicates the factors involved, which other speakers have mentioned.

Smoking is still important. We still have too many people smoking in pregnancy. It is about 18 per cent now. It has come down, which is very welcome, but we need to go further. Groups such as the family nurse practitioners who are supporting families who are more likely to experience cot death are important. Teenage mothers are more likely to experience it. The numbers are very small, but it is still more likely to happen to them. The fact that families with lower socioeconomic status are overrepresented is important.

Breastfeeding is important. I was disappointed to hear that the family nurse practitioner programme, which we all support and think is good, has achieved only a 5 per cent level of breastfeeding. We need to question why a highly focused, low case load programme has achieved only 5 per cent, given how important it is to the group involved. Breastfeeding is another of the factors involved. We know that it protects against infection, but there is also an association with cot death rates.

The reduction in the number of teenage pregnancies, which the Health and Sport Committee produced a report on, is welcome. The trend is beginning to move in the right direction, but there is still substantial variation across the country in the levels of teenage pregnancy. It is critical that we follow up that report. It was not produced that long ago and it needs to be looked at. I feel that there should be school-level publication of teenage pregnancies. When I went to Oldham I found that that was instrumental in changing the approach to teenage pregnancy. Schools that did not believe they had a problem with it suddenly realised when the figures were given to them that they had a serious problem with it, which they then addressed.

There are other groups of mothers beyond the very limited tight group covered by the family nurse partnership who might also have problems. Drug and alcohol abuse is another factor involved. We need to make sure that those mothers are supported. Health visitors previously worked with those focused groups. We have now removed the most difficult people, or the ones most needing help or the most at risk. The ones who do not qualify for family nurse partnerships need to continue to be supported. In Fife, there was an excellent programme supporting 600 families, but that has now been somewhat damaged by the removal of resources into the FNP. Frankly, that is unacceptable and it needs to be looked at. I hope that the Government will do so.

I hear that the positive change programme in Glasgow has similarly had problems since the FNP was established, so that needs to be dealt with, too.

I am looking at the Presiding Officer to see whether I am still all right for time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You can have a little more time if you wish.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The other issue that I want to address is a difficult one, because it is still a matter of debate: swaddling. In some cultures, swaddling is the natural thing to do and the established cultural approach. It is important that we understand that, because it is thought that swaddling, which increases heat, can become a factor. We know that if a child is too hot, it is a factor. Getting proper advice on swaddling is important. I know that the Scottish Cot Death Trust has advice on that.

At one point, there was a question of whether the emissions from certain types of mattresses were a factor. That has now been addressed. Having the right bedding, clothing and temperature; avoiding smoking, alcohol and drugs; and not taking the baby into bed with you when there is any possibility of overlay, particularly when the baby is premature—all that sort of advice, which the Scottish Cot Death Trust has given, is extremely welcome. I hope that the trust will not have to go on for another 30 years and that we will find a solution. In the meantime, its programme, which educates the general public and supports families who have been bereaved in this way, is welcome and critical and must be supported.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I thank Gil Paterson for bringing the debate to the chamber. I note from the Official Report that five years ago he secured a similar debate, which recognised a quarter of a century of the Scottish Cot Death Trust. I join all the other members in congratulating the Scottish Cot Death Trust on its 30th anniversary, and acknowledge the important work that its executive director, Lynsay Allan, and its trustees, staff and many volunteers, past and present, have done over the past 30 years to support families who have lost their babies or young children to sudden unexplained death in infancy. I welcome all the points that members have made.

As members have said, any bereavement is traumatic. However, the sudden and unexpected death of a baby has a devastating impact on the family, which is why the support that the trust offers is necessary and greatly appreciated by the bereaved families affected. Interestingly, just last night in this Parliament there was an event celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Simpson’s Memory Box Appeal. There were some harrowing stories and many tears at that event, which brought home how devastating such a death can be.

As members have mentioned, thankfully recent years have seen a reduction in the number of sudden unexplained deaths in infancy. Until 1991, around 50 babies a year died in Scotland. That has gradually decreased to around 30 babies a year. Clearly even one death is too many, but thankfully the trend is going in the right direction. Figures from National Records of Scotland for 2013 and provisional figures for 2014 show a possible further drop in numbers, which is to be welcomed. Experts believe that the reduction is due to the advice that is given to parents to place babies on their backs to sleep. As Dr Simpson mentioned, that was such a simple message.

Supporting families has been, and still is, a fundamental aspect of the trust’s work. Most recently, it has introduced the Scottish co-ordinator role, which offers assistance to boards in conducting sudden infant death reviews where required, and the next infant support programme, through which the trust offers to work with each SUDI paediatrician in Scotland to ensure that bereaved parents who are expecting a new baby receive extra care and support during the pregnancy, and that those parents are supported after the birth.

The Scottish Cot Death Trust receives section 16(b) funding from the Scottish Government, which was £15,000 in 2014-15 for sleep apnoea monitors. It will receive a total of £120,000 over three years for its support post.

The Scottish Government SUDI group, of which the Scottish Cot Death Trust is an active participant, was established in December 2012. The group was set up to take a fresh look at this important area of work. In particular, it has considered how best to ensure that SUDI reviews are fully completed and it has looked at how to drive improvement locally and nationally.

The SUDI multi-agency toolkit, which is currently hosted by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, provides web-based guidance on the correct procedures in the event of a sudden unexplained death in infancy. That developed a standardised pathway and SUDI review process for all boards to follow when investigating a sudden unexplained death in infancy. The SUDI review process and toolkit have been used since 2011. NHS boards now have full responsibility for undertaking SUDI reviews.

The management of SUDI cases involves not just NHS professionals but professionals from Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and, perhaps, the Scottish Ambulance Service. Often, child protection colleagues are also involved. The information-sharing processes between the agencies are critical.

The Scottish Government SUDI group has considered the information that is gathered from the SUDI review process and will consider further data analysis to drive more quality improvements of the process and improve the care and information that are provided to families who have been devastated by tragic losses.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The minister has properly talked about the wide range of professional support. Of course, the Scottish Cot Death Trust musters much of that to help those who are affected. However, is it not also the case that those who have experienced sudden infant death syndrome are often most valued by later sufferers, because they bring personal experience, which is often at least as valuable as the professional input that comes from the wide range of people who are involved in the trust and in the issue? That is a general feature of third sector bodies, of which the Scottish Cot Death Trust is a good example.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

I absolutely agree that peer support is crucial, not just in this area of work but in many aspects of the work that I undertake. From the visits that I make to various organisations, I know that people learn much more from and have much more empathy with someone who has been through the same experience as them.

In the past two years, there have been two SUDI summits, which have been joint events held by the Scottish Cot Death Trust and the Scottish Government. The most recent summit, which I opened, took place in December 2014 and was an excellent day of sharing best practice, with the common goal of assisting bereaved families who experience SUDI.

This year, the Scottish Government set up the child death reviews steering group. The trust has a representative on that important group, to ensure that the perspective of bereaved parents is heard. The steering group will provide a report to ministers in the summer, setting out its recommendations for a child death review process.

As members have mentioned, the cause of SIDS is not known. It is possible that many factors contribute, but some factors are known to make SIDS more likely. Those include placing a baby on their front or side for sleep. We also know that the risk of SIDS is higher in cases where babies are born preterm or with low birth weight, or where the mother smokes over 20 cigarettes a day when pregnant or in families where there is socioeconomic deprivation or complex needs. As Dr Simpson said, where breastfeeding rates go up, there is less likelihood of sudden death. We are making good progress on teenage pregnancies, but more needs to be done on that.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on postnatal care, which were updated in December 2014, agree with all that. We need clear evidence to say that one particular factor directly causes SIDS. NICE reviewed the evidence relating to co-sleeping—that is, when parents or carers sleep on a bed, sofa or chair with an infant—in the first year of an infant’s life. Some of the reviewed evidence showed that there is a statistical relationship between SIDS and co-sleeping. However, NICE was clear that the evidence does not show that co-sleeping causes SIDS. Therefore, the term “association” has been used in the recommendations to describe the relationship between co-sleeping and SIDS. NICE recommends that healthcare professionals should

“Inform parents and carers that the association between co-sleeping and SIDS may be greater”

if there has been alcohol consumption or drug use, or with low birth weight or premature infants.

I should also mention the “Reduce the risk” leaflet, which is given to every mother, antenatally or following delivery.

I again acknowledge the work that is done by the Scottish Cot Death Trust, and I wish the organisation continued success in the future, supporting families who are affected by the sudden unexpected death of a child or baby.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Many thanks, minister, and I thank all members for taking part in this important debate.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

First, I thank you, Presiding Officer, for agreeing to the request to bring forward this members’ debate from this evening to this afternoon. That has allowed a number of the Sudden Cot Death Trust’s trustees to attend. Members will be aware that we have a late decision time at 8 o’clock, so I am very grateful that the debate was allowed to happen, particularly on this day. I also thank those colleagues who signed the motion and helped to secure the debate.

As a parent and a grandfather, I can think of nothing more difficult to imagine or in any way comprehend than the devastation that must happen when a baby has passed away. For that to happen at all would be hard enough for any parent and family to withstand, but not to know the reason for the loss is beyond all natural senses. Therefore, it is with some comfort, relief and respect that we have people who understand the gravity of such a horrendous human experience and who aim to help in a number of ways.

First, those people know that considerable support is needed for parents, siblings and extended family members when such tragedies strike. Secondly, they recognise that action is needed to fund medical research in the hope that the cause of the tragedies can be identified. With the available information, campaigns are launched to educate and inform those who care for babies and young children with a view to reducing the number of people who experience this particular horror.

How does that valuable work come about? For 30 years, the Scottish Cot Death Trust has been in the vanguard of doing that very work on our nation’s behalf. A group of individuals volunteering to do what must be the most difficult matter possible: counselling parents who have just lost their baby—many of whom, as a starting point, blame themselves for the death of their child—to the syndrome known as cot death.

The dedicated people of the Scottish Cot Death Trust ask for little in return from the Scottish Government or this Parliament, other than help to bring the issue to the wider public’s attention and to bring together those agencies that respond in the most appropriate way whenever a tragedy strikes.

When I was asked to lodge the motion in the hope of securing cross-party support and holding a debate, it was the very least I could do. Indeed, members in this Parliament appreciate greatly the need to give time to highlight the sterling work of the charity and to raise awareness of the counselling and support available for those in need. I hope that this debate will draw attention to some of the dangers for new parents, even if they already have children, which will go to reducing the numbers of babies and young children being lost to cot death.

The most important part of the trust’s work is how it helps to prevent cot death in the first place by funding research and highlighting ways in which parents can help to reduce the associated risks that increase sudden unexpected death in infancy. Alternatively, is it the counselling of families who have suffered such a terrible loss? It is, of course, both. Although the education and information that is provided will lead to a reduction in cot death, and I know that the trust is working towards zero tolerance of cot death, I fear that some families will need its help for some time to come.

In the 30 years since the trust was established, it has had an important, vital and wide-ranging impact. It has brought about a different approach from the authorities and, of course, the press, which now has some sympathy and a much better understanding of the truth than it ever had before.

Cot deaths occur in every part of Scotland and affect every section of society. Although they occur more frequently in deprived areas, more affluent areas are not safe from the heartache. Most cot deaths occur within the first year of life but they can also occur in older children; cot death can happen wherever an infant is sleeping.

In the early 1990s, the back to sleep campaign was the single most significant awareness-raising campaign ever implemented, and the Scottish Cot Death Trust was instrumental in ensuring its implementation across Scotland. The campaign aimed to educate all parents and carers that they should place babies on their backs for sleeping, rather than on their fronts as had been the previous advice. It resulted in an immediate decline in the number of cases of cot death and it continues to be one of the most important pieces of advice for parents. However, a common misconception is held today that cot death has been completely eradicated in Scotland, so the work continues.

The motion debated today outlines the key point that the trust is aiming to promote as part of its 30th anniversary message, which is to ensure that parents are given as much information and help as possible to prevent such a tragedy from happening to them.

Since it was formed, the trust has provided vital support for hundreds of families across Scotland. Over the years, the support services on offer have been developed further, and today the trust offers an impressive range of support for families who have been affected by the loss of a baby or young child to cot death. The trust does not just support newly bereaved families; it also supports those who are still affected by the loss of a baby, in some cases many years after the tragedy. Such long-term support is vital for many families, including those who go on to have another baby.

To see just how much work the Scottish Cot Death Trust does, we need only look at the spring edition of Scottish Cot Death Trust News. I know that most members received a copy, and I would be most grateful if they looked at them and passed them on. That would be a good bit of work for the trust.

The work carried out by the trust and its staff is immeasurable, and few words in the English dictionary can be used to fully acknowledge it, but there are at least two words that I would like to say at this moment in time and on behalf of the Parliament—thank you.

Culture, Europe and External Affairs

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is portfolio questions on culture, Europe and external affairs. I would prefer short and succinct questions and answers, please, in order to bring in as many questioners as possible.

National Museum of Scotland (Remains of Beothuk Tribe Members)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the national museum of Scotland regarding the request to repatriate to Canada the remains of the last two members of the Beothuk tribe. (S4O-04458)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The national museum of Scotland has confirmed that it has met those wishing the Beothuk remains to be repatriated to Canada, and it has explained the established mechanism for making a formal repatriation request. The museum has yet to receive a formal request, but it expects one to be made.

National Museums Scotland has advised that it has yet to receive the formal request, but it will consider any such request carefully. Decisions on repatriating individual items in the National Museums Scotland collection are, in the first instance, for the board of National Museums Scotland, acting in that respect independently of the Scottish Government.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome that response, and I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. I am sure that she would agree with me that, although it is of course a matter for the board of the national museum in the first instance, the keeping of skulls is surely not a 21st-century response to the common humanity that we share with these two individuals, who were the last recorded individuals of this tribe, which was wiped out probably because of environmental pressures on their hunting grounds, as well as by cultural pressures. Perhaps it would be an appropriate response to that shared humanity to ensure that, when the request comes, it is dealt with speedily and in a humane fashion, so that we can set the matter to rest.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

National Museums Scotland is well aware of the sensitivity of the issue. There is well-developed guidance on the repatriation of human remains from Scottish collections in the light of the human tissue legislation that was passed in Scotland in 2006. There was an example of returns from the NMS to Wellington in 2007.

I reiterate that the decision is for the NMS board, but ministers may then have to make a legal designation for the receiving institution in Canada as an appropriate body. I very much take on board the member’s points that this is an issue of humanity and should be treated as such.

Government of Qatar (Meetings)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government which ministers have met representatives of the Government of Qatar since it was awarded the 2022 world cup. (S4O-04459)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Scottish ministers have met Qatari officials on a number of occasions since 2010, when Qatar was awarded the 2022 world cup. Most recently, I met Mr Khalid Rashid Al-Mansouri, head of European affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We discussed a number of issues, including those of the rights of migrant workers.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

According to press reports, the Minister for External Affairs and International Development went on a trip to Qatar from 19 May 2013, and the First Minister visited some time between 27 October and 4 November 2011. Can the minister advise why there is no detail of those ministerial visits or of what ministers did on those visits in the ministerial diaries?

Will the Government now release all information about those visits? Two weeks ago, when he was asked, the minister said that it was because of an administrative error that there was no detail in the diaries. It would appear that that administrative error still persists.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I say to the member that the Scottish Government aims to be as transparent as possible about meetings that are undertaken by ministers. The reason that was given at the time of the press report absolutely stands. There was a clerical error, not just on that visit but on a number of visits. I accept that point, and it takes time, of course, for that clerical error to be rectified. We hope to publish the updated list soon.

I say to the member that the trip that he refers to—the Qatar trip of 2013—was not some kind of secret. In fact, his own researcher tweeted the link to the announcement that we made at that time. This is not the work of the Illuminati or the Knights Templar. There is no conspiracy theory. We are happy to continue to give details.

I know that the issue is close to the member’s heart, and I am happy to work with him, talk to him and discuss it with him. The Government has raised the issue of migrant workers not just in Qatar but across the Gulf region. If he is serious about the issue, my door is always open to him to talk about how we can work together to ensure that workers are treated correctly, not just in Qatar but across the entire region.

Gaelic Culture (Promotion and Support)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to promote and support Gaelic culture. (S4O-04460)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government’s support for Gaelic culture has been significant.

Support for MG Alba has transformed broadcasting in Scotland. Our support for Gaelic education has created a significant and successful sector. Support for Bòrd na Gàidhlig has enabled Gaelic to be promoted in many areas of Scottish public and community life. Our support for Gaelic arts and cultural events has allowed a minority community to have a significant impact on Scottish cultural life. Creative Scotland is providing more than £5 million to Gaelic organisations and other organisations with a high Gaelic content over the three years from 2015 to 2018.

Last week, on 10 June, I was delighted to present a creative places award to Stornoway and the islands of Lewis and Harris at an event hosted by Creative Scotland with support from EventScotland. The £125,000 that they won will be used for a project called Bealach, which will mark Stornoway as a gateway to the creative community of the Outer Hebrides.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that Gaelic culture and heritage is often passed down through poetry and song. To access that, we need to be able to speak the language and understand it. She talked about support for education, but she will be aware that there has been a marked drop in the number of pupils who choose Gaelic as a language in schools, and that has led to a fall in the number of students who gain a qualification. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that the education system is providing the education and skills that are required to access our culture and heritage?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

This question time is on culture, Europe and external affairs. If the member wants to direct her question on education matters to my education colleagues, I am sure that they will be willing to respond to her directly.

The member’s original question was about culture, and in my answer I talked about the cultural celebrations. I am delighted that, particularly among our young people, there has been such an expansion, particularly in the provision of Gaelic education in the early years. If the member wants to direct her question on education to education ministers, I will ensure that it is answered.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Notwithstanding the answer that the cabinet secretary has just given to Rhoda Grant, I ask whether any discussions have taken place between the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning about how to find more teachers of Gaelic.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

This is the question time for culture, Europe and external affairs. I am more than happy to answer questions on culture; as the member well knows, questions on education should be directed to my education colleagues.

As far as the celebration and promotion of Gaelic culture is concerned, my department has provided, for example, investment in Fèis Rois, support for MG Alba in terms of film and television, £620,000 for the Gaelic Books Council and £1.4 million for Fèisean na Gàidheal. I am pleased about the support that I can provide in my role as culture minister.

When I was the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, I was instrumental in ensuring that Gaelic schools were developed, but I ask that questions about Gaelic education are submitted for portfolio questions on education, which will be at a different meeting of the Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Okay. I think that we will move on to question 4.

European Union Reform (United Kingdom Government Proposals)

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has been invited by the United Kingdom Government to discuss its negotiation proposals regarding European Union reform. (S4O-04461)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government has proactively shared its agenda for EU reform, published in August 2014, with the UK Government; it outlines a number of measures for improvement and reform within the existing EU treaty framework.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his answer, but can he give us some reassurance that the Scottish Government will make representations to ensure that the needs and priorities of our fishing industry are not forgotten by the UK Government during the EU renegotiation? We all remember how we were sold down the river during previous European negotiations when a Westminster Government official said that

“in the wider UK context they—”

the Scottish fishermen—

“must be regarded as expendable.”

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The member makes an important point. Richard Lochhead has been a real champion in such matters and others. When fishing issues are being spoken about at the EU agriculture and environment councils, we continue to urge the UK Government to ensure that Richard Lochhead is there to represent Scotland and Scotland’s interests.

The member will note that, in her recent speech in Brussels, the First Minister used the common fisheries policy as an example of how the EU could be better reformed. Yes, we will continue to make the representations to the UK Government referred to by the member. In terms of the renegotiation, Scotland’s voice and, indeed, that of all the devolved Administrations should be listened to.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Can the minister confirm that Scottish Government support for continued membership of the EU is not conditional on reform? Further, can he say what the Scottish Government is doing in terms of inviting businesses, charities and civic Scotland to come together to help promote the positive case for continued membership of the EU?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Both those questions are excellent. In terms of the latter question, the member is absolutely correct that the Scottish Government has a role in bringing together civic society, businesses and academics, and various discussions and facilitations are taking place. All of us, of course, have a responsibility, but I do not believe that the campaign to stay within the European Union necessarily has to be politician-led. I think that that is what the member was alluding to in her question, and I would certainly agree with that view.

In terms of the member’s first question, she is correct in that although we wish to see reform of the European Union—we set out our views on that in our agenda for reform and the First Minister has subsequently given her view in the speech to which I referred earlier—we believe that it should happen regardless of what kind of renegotiation the Prime Minister happens to come back with from Europe.

We are pro-European, and we believe that Scotland is best served by remaining a member of the European Union and that the European Union is stronger for having Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom within it, regardless of what the Prime Minister manages to renegotiate on our behalf.

Mediterranean Refugee Crisis (Representations to United Kingdom Government)

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what representation it has made to the UK Government regarding the Mediterranean refugee crisis. (S4O-04462)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

As I said in my reply to Alison Johnstone on 21 April, the Scottish Government has consistently raised concerns about migrants risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean and reach the European Union, and will continue to use every opportunity to press for action on what is a humanitarian emergency.

On 20 May, following the UK general election, I wrote again to Mr Brokenshire as I had promised, expressing the views of this Parliament, as stated in our debate of 6 May. I have not yet received a response. The First Minister also raised the issue when she met David Cameron, and I understand that Scottish Government officials have had early discussions with Home Office officials in relation to UK Government views on refugee resettlement.

My colleague Humza Yousaf, the Minister for Europe and International Development, reiterated on Monday the Scottish Government’s position on the issue, and called on the UK Government to participate in EU proposals on refugee relocation and to take a proportionate share of the people who are fleeing conflict and persecution.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that lengthy reply. I think that she might have answered all my questions, but I will carry on anyway in case I miss out anything. I accept that funding for the EU’s operation trident has trebled, but there are still huge concerns about reports that almost 2,000 refugees and migrants have died crossing the Mediterranean this year. What can the Scottish Government do not only directly—the cabinet secretary referred to that—but indirectly to make the UK Government and other Governments strengthen their commitment to dealing with the on-going tragedy on Europe’s doorstep?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

To supplement my initial answer, I can refer to a number of things in terms of influencing other Governments. For example, in her recent speech in Brussels, the First Minister referred in particular to the migrants issue, and I know that the Italian Government is very appreciative of my and the Parliament’s continuing interest in the issue. In practical terms, there are also the UK’s responsibilities in terms of relocation and resettlement.

It was helpful to have a debate in Parliament on the issue so that we could indicate to the UK Government our collective desire not only for the immediate humanitarian issue to be addressed—I think that that is the point of Margaret McCulloch’s question—but for the longer-term issues to be addressed, too. The member’s question is not the only question on a humanitarian issue that has been asked in today’s questions; I thank for her for asking it.

Voluntary Sector Organisations (Developing Countries)

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports voluntary sector organisations working in developing countries. (S4O-04463)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government supports voluntary sector organisations working in developing countries in many ways, for example through our international development fund, which is £9 million a year, and our £6 million climate justice fund. Both those funds support robust programmes for development that have been delivered by a range of organisations and institutions in Scotland, including from the voluntary sector, working with partners overseas.

In 2015-16, we are also providing just over £450,000 to 15 smaller organisations from our small grants programme, which delivers a broad range of capacity building, feasibility and project grants to smaller organisations.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister join me in congratulating Mary’s Meals—which is headquartered in Dalmally in my region and led by my inspirational constituent, Magnus MacFarlane-Barrow—on its recent announcement that it is now providing 1 million children in some of the world’s poorest countries with a meal on every day that they attend school? Does the Government agree that Mary’s Meals is a world-class example of the impact that the voluntary sector can have in developing countries? How can the Scottish Government help other national and international voluntary organisations to learn from that best practice?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Yes—I join Jamie McGrigor in congratulating Mary’s Meals. I agree with his comments on his inspirational constituent Magnus MacFarlane-Barrow, who was mentioned as being one of the most influential Catholics in a list that was made up recently, and who deserves his spot in the top 10, because his inspiration is felt not just in Scotland, but around the world.

I sent a video message to Mary’s Meals to congratulate it on the great achievement of feeding 1 million children around the world every day, which is phenomenal. I want Scotland to be known and judged by how compassionate a country it is: nothing demonstrates that better than Mary’s Meals.

In respect of what else we can do, we have our international development fund and so on. Perhaps Jamie McGrigor and I can have a discussion, post-Smith, about how we could put our international development on a statutory footing, as organisations including the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland and the Scotland Malawi Partnership have asked us to do. If we do that, we might have more powers and, even, resources to put towards international development in the future.

I agree entirely with Jamie McGrigor on the achievements of Mary’s Meals.

European Union Referendum (Franchise)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the proposal that 16 and 17-year-olds and European nationals living in the United Kingdom will not be able to vote in the EU referendum. (S4O-04464)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government does not support the UK Government’s proposals to exclude 16 and 17-year-olds and EU citizens living in the UK from voting in the referendum on membership of the European Union. We strongly urge the UK Government to draw on the democratic success of the independence referendum and accordingly to amend the bill to allow all 16 and 17-year-olds and EU citizens living in the UK to vote in the referendum. [Interruption.]

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the minister for his reply and my colleague Christian Allard for his enthusiasm.

Can the minister or his officials provide me with the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds and European Union residents who are affected and who live in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland, given that it is a typical Scottish Parliamentary constituency?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will ask the officials and test their statistical dexterity in that respect. I do not know whether the statistics, extrapolated down to Bill Kidd’s specific constituency, will be available, but as we know, there are more than 170,000 EU citizens in Scotland; we have a very prominent one in the chamber.

All members will know many people who are citizens of the European Union and who have chosen to make our constituencies and regions their home; those people should not be excluded from the vote. That also goes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Many of us visited high schools during the referendum campaign and all those who did will have been enthused by the enthusiasm of the 16 and 17-year-olds and their interest in and engagement with the democratic process. That response should not be stifled because of the whim of the UK Government.

China (Cultural Links)

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in establishing cultural links between Scotland and China. (S4O-04465)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The previous First Minister signed a cultural memorandum of understanding with China in December 2011 to strengthen Scotland’s cultural links with China. As part of the MOU, the Scottish Government is providing networking opportunities to enable creative practitioners to develop cultural links and partnerships with the Chinese creative sector.

Earlier this year, Scottish Ballet toured “Romeo and Juliet”, the Tron Theatre Ltd toured its co-production of “Ulysses” and NVA took “Speed of Light” to Beijing. The Scottish Government is contributing to the United Kingdom-China year of cultural exchange in 2015.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary and the minister know that the cross-party group on China places a great deal of importance on cultural links, and that it believes that the development of Chinese language in our schools, improvement of the visa situation and direct flights between Scotland and China are very important. Can the cabinet secretary report any developments on any of those issues in the past year?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

There have been developments in a number of areas. For example, we are taking forward the cross-party group’s work on visas, which are not just an issue for business; as Graeme Pearson has identified, artists’ travel can be prevented, and they can be particularly affected timingwise, in respect of putting on productions.

Work with schools continues and is developing. In all that, the cultural connections that we can make really help to solve problems.

Obviously, direct flights are a continuing issue. Graeme Pearson will know that our Government is continually pressing on and trying to develop such flights, although obviously that takes time.

Glasgow Prestwick Airport (Discussions with United Kingdom Government)

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding securing the future of Glasgow Prestwick airport. (S4O-04468)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Glasgow Prestwick airport continues to operate on a commercial basis at arm’s length from the Government. Scottish Government officials last met their Westminster counterparts on 29 May to discuss the process for determining the location of the United Kingdom spaceport.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

I am delighted to hear that, and I look forward to hearing the decision on the spaceport.

As part of the Scotland Bill package, air passenger duty is due to be devolved to the Scottish Government. With control of that tax, the Scottish Government could generate a boost to all Scottish airports. What work is being done to identify a replacement for APD? Do the considerations include the assessment of the cost and the environmental implications?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is not the Government’s position to replace APD. In fact, we would like to have been able to take action six years ago, when the Calman commission proposed that APD should be devolved to Scotland, but that has not been possible and will not be possible until the power is devolved in the future.

As has been stated on a number of occasions, we intend first to reduce the impact by around half. We have done the cost calculations on that. That would take place in the next session. In the future, the aim is to reduce the impact to zero, but that would happen only as public resources allowed.

Some work has been done on the environmental impact. I would be happy to get that information and pass it to the member.

The substantial point that the member made about the benefit to all Scotland’s airports was good. The benefit would be substantial. For example, Ryanair, which is the main passenger airline at Prestwick, has said that it would expect to have around a million more passenger journeys. The York Aviation report, which goes into the matter in some detail and which, I think, all airports in Scotland and many of the airlines contributed to, said that there would be a substantial economic benefit. That would be for the airports, the aircraft companies and the general population in Scotland from more people coming to this country.

I have described what we want to do. A fair bit of work has been done and work is on-going. There will be a consultation exercise. I will provide the member with the environmental information that she asked for.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the closure of Prestwick airport would have been devastating for Ayrshire and its economy? Does he maintain that the action that the Scottish Government took to purchase that airport was the right thing to do?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Absolutely. The member has raised an important point that can sometimes be lost in the passage of time. I am in no doubt that we were right to purchase Glasgow Prestwick. Closure was on the cards; indeed, the airport’s previous owners were working to a specific timeframe and were going to pull down the shutters at the airport on a specific day. We as the Scottish Government were not willing to stand by and let that happen.

The member will recall Scottish Enterprise’s estimate that around 3,200 local jobs are directly or indirectly based in and around Glasgow Prestwick, and we can all imagine the impact on the area of losing that level of jobs. We believe that with the right team in place, the right business plan for the future and the support of key local partners such as South Ayrshire Council, the airport can have a positive future and the Government can achieve a return on its investment.

City Deal (Edinburgh and Surrounding Areas)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has had discussions with the United Kingdom Government regarding a city deal for Edinburgh and surrounding areas. (S4O-04469)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I have made clear on a number of occasions, I and the Scottish Government remain willing to work with any Scottish city to unlock investment, whether that is done individually or collectively and whether it happens through a city deal, which is one of the Scottish Government’s devolved initiatives to stimulate growth and deliver infrastructure investment, or through a combination of other measures. To date, discussions on a possible city region deal for Edinburgh have not included the UK Government, although I note that a meeting took place recently between officials from Highland Council, the Scottish Government and the UK Government. We expect such discussions to take place in due course when Edinburgh further develops its proposals.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I hope that progress will be made soon and that the cabinet secretary will discuss the matter with the UK Government, given that the Edinburgh city region has worked up a proposal. In expectation of such progress being made, will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Edinburgh city region deal will be taken into account in the draft Scottish budget that is to be published in the autumn?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That very much depends on the progress that is made. As the member will be aware, different cities are at different stages of development. One issue that has been raised with me is whether the UK Government will honour the commitments that it made in its March budget statement. We also have to move at the pace of all those involved. I should point out that the discussion that I referred to between Highland Council, the UK Government and the Scottish Government was positive.

I remain hopeful that the Edinburgh city deal can make progress, but it will happen as part of a process that involves this Government and the City of Edinburgh Council. I acknowledge that the council has worked up a proposal, but I think that it will concede that more work has to be done on it. Obviously, the UK Government, too, will have to be included.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the meeting between Highland Council and the two Governments. Will he elaborate on that? For example, does he know whether the UK Government will honour the commitments and promises that it made before the general election on city deals for Aberdeen and Inverness?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly, please, cabinet secretary.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I said, the meeting that took place just last week between Highland Council and the UK and Scottish Governments had a positive tenor, and the expectation is that the UK Government will follow through on its previous commitments to a city deal for Inverness.

Infrastructure Investment Plan

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish an updated infrastructure investment plan. (S4O-04470)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We are working to publish the refreshed infrastructure investment plan later this year.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Given the range of health, schools, justice, further and higher education, culture and enterprise building projects, will the cabinet secretary tell me how many of those projects include renewable heat and power infrastructure? Will he give a commitment that the refreshed programme will make heat and power schemes a key priority for the next round of infrastructure projects?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

On Sarah Boyack’s first question, I am happy to send the member the detailed information that she seeks.

The issue that Ms Boyack highlighted in her second question must be a consideration for the refreshed infrastructure investment plan. The current plan was refreshed at the time of the previous spending review and, in reviewing the plan, we are trying to tie the two things together.

There are a number of projects in the plan—not least those to electrify rail lines—in which we want to maximise our contribution to helping the environment, but schools projects and some of the other projects that the member mentioned often fall within the remit of local authorities, so it will be for them to make proposals. Nevertheless, as I said, I am happy to let the member know what we are doing, and we will take the issue into account in our next review of the plan.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

Notwithstanding the persistent cuts to Scotland’s capital budget by the UK Government, will the cabinet secretary set out the scale of the Scottish Government’s transport investment programme and say particularly how that investment will benefit my constituents in the city of Edinburgh?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member will know that we are maximising our capital spending and supporting an investment-led recovery, despite our capital departmental expenditure limit budget being reduced by around a quarter in real terms between 2010-11 and 2015-16. Through using all the levers at our disposal, the scale of Transport Scotland’s direct and indirect capital budget for 2015-16 is just over £1 billion, including £269 million for the replacement Forth crossing—a project that will directly benefit Edinburgh and the member’s constituents. Total investment of £1.4 billion is estimated to support 1,200 jobs at the project’s peak, many of which will be in the local area.

Augmenting that budget is a revenue-funded infrastructure programme, including the non-profit-distributing pipeline and regulatory asset base investment in rail infrastructure. That programme includes a number of major projects that will improve connectivity between Edinburgh and the rest of the country, such as the Borders railway, the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme and the £430 million M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements project. That is a total overall capital investment of £1.5 billion.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 4 from Liz Smith was not lodged and an explanation has been provided.

Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles (Cost of Flights)

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has received regarding the cost of flights to and from Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. (S4O-04472)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

We are aware of recent concerns about commercial air fares in the Highlands and Islands. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of the air services in question and is committed to continuing the air discount scheme, which provides a 40 per cent subsidy for eligible passengers. The issue of air services to the islands was raised by the island authorities at the recent island areas ministerial working group. It was agreed that a scoping paper would be produced to look at those vital services in their totality, covering a range of issues including fares. I have also agreed to meet a delegation of campaigners, as well as a number of MSPs, including Mr Stewart, to discuss the issue.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister aware of the online campaign by islanders against Flybe and Loganair’s excessive prices, which has secured more than 14,000 followers? The Labour-led Scottish Executive introduced the air discount scheme to make air services more affordable for island and remote communities. What specific plans does the minister have to address the sky-high prices that are being charged to islanders travelling from Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and beyond?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The first thing to celebrate is the fact that this Scottish Government has continued that scheme and committed to its continuation. Fares are not the only issue with air services to the islands that I am aware of; there is also a serious issue with reliability, and the two are connected. I will meet campaigners, councillors and MSPs to explore the issues fully and consider what options the Government may have. Because of the commercial nature of the services, we may be limited in what we can do with cost capping and so on, but I want to apply pressure to operators over the affordability of air services. We share the concern about the nature of the services and the fare increases that have been experienced. There is no prospect of competition on most of the routes, and operators should be mindful of that, as well as of the importance that local communities attach to air services as part of the transport mix that ensures that the islands are not an isolated part of Scotland. I am happy to engage with Mr Stewart and other members to find consensus across the Parliament on a way forward.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As claims are being putting in for the air discount scheme, may I put on record my gratitude to my colleague Tavish Scott for introducing it when he was transport minister?

The minister rightly mentions reliability and the problems that that has caused when conflated with the high costs on the routes. I am due to meet the minister and Tavish Scott next Tuesday—subject to there being no delays with my flight next Tuesday morning. Will the minister undertake to carry out a bit of scoping work on some of the options that might address reliability which, as I say, makes a toxic mix with the high costs that David Stewart referred to?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Yes, I will commit to that work. The scoping work should look at the reliability of the services, including the aircraft. Of course, we will take a close look at fares, too, because all the issues are connected. I want to have a constructive conversation with the operators about how we take forward the situation.

The online petition represents a strong feeling from the islands about how they have been treated. Every party in the chamber has claimed credit for the air discount scheme. We can keep that consensus as we work towards addressing the cost and reliability issues.

Islands Transport Forum

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what matters the islands transport forum will discuss at its first meeting. (S4O-04473)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Earlier this month, I announced in Orkney that a new islands transport forum will be set up to consider strategic transport issues affecting Scotland’s islands.

The forum will meet biannually and will include representatives from local authorities with island communities. It is intended that the forum will deal with internal and external ferry, air and other transport services on which each of the island communities so heavily depends for social cohesion and sustainable economic activity and growth. I am in the process of finalising the detailed membership and the working methods for the forum, in consultation with the island authorities. Therefore, no detailed agenda items have yet been set for the forum’s first meeting.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Thank you for that response and for the content of your reply to question 5, which also touched on the matter.

I will introduce something quite new with which the minister is unlikely to be familiar. Air navigation and approach procedures are changing with the move towards the use of GPS—global positioning system—instrument approaches, which have not yet been adopted in the United Kingdom but which are eminently suitable for Government and local authority airports and might make a contribution to improving reliability in poor weather conditions. Will the minister talk to people involved in the islands transport forum about that and, thereafter, consider approaching the Civil Aviation Authority and the UK Government to see whether we can pilot some of the new technologies, which are much cheaper than the previous ones?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

A brief answer will do, minister.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I will give the matter close consideration and, in answer to the question, yes, I will.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Many thanks.

ScotRail (Meetings)

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Government when ministers last met the management of ScotRail. (S4O-04474)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities met ScotRail’s commercial director yesterday.

The member will be aware of recent events in relation to Abellio’s Dutch operations alongside its parent company, NS. I can advise that I have held discussions with Abellio UK and sought assurances that the issues are being properly addressed inside both Abellio and NS.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for his reference to recent events at Abellio, where we have seen senior departures from the company in Scotland and in Holland. The Dutch Government has said that there is a need for cultural change in Abellio.

The minister will also be aware of the comments of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. What discussions has he had with unions or, indeed, representatives of the travelling public, so that they, too, can be assured that ScotRail management’s focus is on having an effective and improving railway?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I appreciate that question and the opportunity to say that I am reassured that the efforts in Scotland are on providing the rail service that we would expect, and that the franchise agreements will be delivered.

On hearing the concerns that have emanated from Holland, I immediately sought reassurances from Abellio and NS. I have had discussions at the highest level, which I have been reassured by. I am also reassured that, because of the procurement process and the work of Audit Scotland and others, the issues do not affect Scotland. I will look closely at the internal investigations in Holland, which will include looking at all the company’s franchise bids over the past five years—that will happen in around a month’s time—to see whether there are any other issues that I should be aware of or concerned about. However, I am satisfied with the information that I have had so far.

As it happens, today I met the Scottish Trades Union Congress and RMT. I gave them the assurance that I will explore the issue and that, if we need to, we will revisit the situation. However, all the evidence that I have had so far is that there is no impact on ScotRail or on the procurement exercise that was undertaken in Scotland.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the minister update members on how ScotRail is coping with the closure of the Winchburgh tunnel and the alternative arrangements that, from my perspective, appear to be going quite well?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I am delighted for Mr Mason that his experience is that it is going quite well. I know that a number of other members are regular users of the train service. I can report that the electrification work on the Winchburgh tunnel is progressing well and remains on schedule. These are early days, but it is going well. ScotRail has reported that its disruption management plan is working effectively and its services are being maintained as anticipated. Transport Scotland has launched a new website—www.keepscotlandmoving.com.

Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 52A (Revised); the marshalled list, that is SP Bill 52A-ML, and the correction slip to the marshalled list that was issued yesterday; and the groupings, that is SP Bill 52A-G.

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, I will allow a voting period of one minute 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 buttons as soon as possible after I call the group.

Section 1—National outcomes

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on “Setting of national outcomes—procedure, consultation etc”. Amendment 27, in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, is grouped with amendments 28, 147, 29 to 33, 148, 34 to 40, 149, 150, 41 and 133.

Because of pre-emption, if amendment 147 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 29 and 30, and if amendment 40 Is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 149.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am glad to be starting proceedings this afternoon.

Part 1 of the bill places a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare a set of national outcomes that describe the kind of Scotland that we all want to live in, and to regularly and publicly measure progress towards them. At stage 2, we agreed on the importance of the Scottish Parliament’s scrutiny role and of strengthening public consultation and they are retained at the heart of my amendments. However, the bill requires two separate processes to be undertaken in the setting and reviewing of national outcomes. That would be convoluted, repetitive and unclear, and would involve a considerable amount of double consultation of communities and Parliament.

My amendments seek to provide for a single process. They also balance the valuable scrutiny role of Parliament against the Government’s responsibilities for the Scottish public sector, and they strengthen the public consultation process.

In consulting the Scottish Parliament, we must reflect the separation of powers between a Government that is responsible for setting its strategic direction, and a Parliament that is responsible for holding that Government to account for its progress. That is why we consider that the provision in the bill of a 40-day period for the Parliament to be consulted on the draft national outcomes provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. It is the same period of time that would be afforded by the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation, for example.

Amendments 27 and 34 will restore provision for the national outcomes to be determined by Scottish ministers, rather than by regulations that are subject to the so-called superaffirmative procedure. I agreed with the point that Alex Rowley made at stage 2 that we must involve all communities across Scotland in setting the national outcomes. Amendments 29 and 35 therefore strengthen the consultation process by requiring Scottish ministers to consult persons who represent communities when determining and reviewing the national outcomes.

“Community” is defined by amendments 33 and 37 as including communities based on common interest, identity or geography, to ensure an inclusive consultation. Alex Rowley’s amendment 150 seeks to improve the definition of the word “community”. However, linking the definition to postcode could impact negatively on certain communities such as Gypsy Travellers, communities of interest or communities that are based on social or cultural identities. It also excludes those who only work in an area.

Singling out individuals or groups when it comes to the national outcomes, however important they are, or inadvertently excluding others, is at odds with the principle of participatory democracy. Each person or community has as much right as the next to take part in debating and shaping the Scotland that we live in, and my amendments will ensure that is the case.

Amendments 30 and 36 reflect the discussions at stage 2 and require Scottish ministers to lay an explanatory document containing details of the public consultation when determining and reviewing the national outcomes.

Amendments 41 and 133 make minor consequential amendments.

As the bill stands, Scottish ministers must publish a report every two years, and I believe that that is a retrograde step. One of the strengths of the current reporting system is that the Scotland performs website provides an up-to-the-minute picture of progress. The statistics are published there as and when they become available. We have also responded to the needs of this Parliament by publishing the “Scotland Performs Update” as part of the draft budget process. In the future, the Parliament might find that information more useful at times other than those that are specified in the amendments. Amendments 38 and 39 reinstate provision for Scottish ministers to prepare and publish reports at such times as they consider appropriate.

Amendment 40 removes the requirement to consult on the reports, as any report on progress would be a factual statement, based on evidence.

Amendments 28, 31 and 32 respond to a point that Stewart Stevenson made in his own inimitable style at stage 2. They make it clear that, although the Scottish Parliament and its corporate body are excluded from the duty to have regard to the national outcomes when carrying out their functions, the effect of their functions is not excluded from the determination of the national outcomes.

I ask Alex Rowley not to move the amendments in his name. I move amendment 27.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

More members than I anticipated wish to contribute to the debate. I am not sure whether I can call everyone, but I ask members to keep their remarks short.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

We have concerns about amendments 27, 34 and 133. Allowing Scottish ministers to determine the national outcomes would remove a crucial element of scrutiny, participation and collaboration. A bill that is entitled the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill should place more power in communities’ hands, rather than allow Scottish ministers to determine independently what the nation’s priorities should be. If we are genuinely to empower communities, they should be as involved as possible in determining the national outcomes. However, amendments 27, 34 and 133 would centralise power in ministers’ hands by removing the need for the Scottish Parliament’s approval as well as a stage of public consultation.

On a similar note, it is apparent that amendments 38 to 40 advance centralisation. To ensure that the Government is held to account for its actions, its progress towards national outcomes should be scrutinised on a regular basis. However, amendments 38 to 40 would allow the Scottish Government to publish reports on its progress only when it saw fit, without the need for any public consultation. Removing the regular involvement of the Parliament and the public in assessing progress towards national outcomes would shield the central Government from public scrutiny, which is fundamentally contradictory to the principle of community empowerment.

Alex Rowley’s amendment 147, which would remove the provisions that require consultation before determination of the national outcomes, raises particular concerns about public participation. Community empowerment should allow public participation on a wide scale, and amendment 147 would threaten that.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I feel that Cameron Buchanan may have misinterpreted the amendments that the Scottish Government has lodged. His remarks imply that ministers will somehow decide what the national outcomes shall be and that that shall be the case.

The amendments that the minister has lodged are entirely about the consultation process that will take place on the national outcomes. A consultation will take place, the results of which will assist ministers in determining what the national outcomes should be. Amendment 30 specifically says

“In consulting the Scottish Parliament”,

so there will be consultation not just with the public but with the Parliament on what the national outcomes shall be. I hope that that gives Cameron Buchanan some pause, and might make him more likely to support those amendments when they come to the vote.

I turn to the thrust of what the minister is putting forward. It is entirely correct that we should avoid creating the impression that certain groups and their views would not be considered in consultations because they do not feature in the text of the bill. I know that Alex Rowley is saying that the list as defined in the bill would provide as wide a scope as possible, but there may still be groups in society that could look at every category in the bill and not see themselves defined there. Removing the opportunity for people to feel that they have not been prioritised within the legislation is a fair way to proceed.

I hope that members will back the minister’s amendments, and I hope that Alex Rowley will reconsider his intention to move his.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

I speak in favour of my colleague Alex Rowley’s amendments, and urge the Parliament not to remove the amendments that were agreed by the committee at stage 2. I echo my colleague’s comment that the bill process has been very consensual and that the bill has been improved as a result. I am sure that members will be relieved to hear that there are only a few areas of disagreement this afternoon, which makes it a bit more disappointing that the Government should use its majority to overturn the work of the committee in this section.

At stage 1, the committee agreed unanimously that engagement and consultation on the national outcomes should be enshrined in legislation. At stage 2, my colleague Alex Rowley’s amendments did exactly that, by ensuring that national outcomes would be laid before the Parliament for 60 days.

The minister said that the amendments could—he used the word “could”—exclude Gypsy Travellers and other groups from being involved, but they do not. They might do if the Government allowed them to, but they do not. It is a baseline—a floor rather than a ceiling—and I urge the minister to think again about his approach.

There was potential for one group—“individuals eligible to vote”—to be restrictive and, because of that, Alex Rowley has lodged an amendment to change that to individuals

“normally resident in the local authority area”.

That would avoid unintentionally restricting those who would be consulted.

It strikes me that the committee’s intention at stage 1 was captured by Alex Rowley’s amendments at stage 2. The committee agreed to those amendments. I do not think that there is much disagreement with the minister. If we cannot agree on Alex Rowley’s amendments, Labour will support the Government’s amendment 30, which is a watered-down version. However, I urge the minister to think again about removing all the agreement at this stage. I emphasise that that approach was agreed by Oxfam, Barnardo’s, the Poverty Alliance and many others in the voluntary sector. I urge members to support Alex Rowley’s amendments.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can call Alex Fergusson and Malcolm Chisholm, as long as both are brief.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Thank you, Presiding Officer; I will be brief.

In summing up, will the minister allay my fears on two counts? Can he confirm that amendment 28, if it is agreed to, would allow the Scottish Parliament to operate entirely independently of national outcomes? On amendment 33, on what grounds does the minister wish to define community to include common interest, identity or geography in this part of the bill, although that is not the definition that is used in other parts of the bill?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The minister gave an explanation for amendment 32, but it still reads rather strangely. I think that it would probably merit further explanation, because anyone outside the Parliament who read it would think that we were setting ourselves above the national outcomes. I am sure that that is not the intention, but I am slightly concerned about what may be read into amendment 32.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Let me begin almost at the end and work back. Amendments 32 and 28, which refer to the Scottish Parliament, make it clear that although the Scottish Parliament and its corporate body are excluded from the duty to have regard to the national outcomes, their functions are not excluded from the determination of the national outcomes themselves. I agree that that is a difficult distinction and perhaps not one that immediately jumps out, but the idea was to avoid accidentally bringing the Scottish Parliament—in its scrutiny functions and other functions that should be protected from Government decisions—into the bill unnecessarily.

Alex Fergusson asked about amendment 33. Communities have been defined differently in different parts of the bill. The member sits on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, which scrutinised the part of the bill that focuses on land reform, in which community is generally defined in a geographical way. However, other parts of the bill—on asset transfer and participation requests—have had a distinct definition of community within them to capture different things in different contexts, including communities of interest.

In working out the views of people in Scotland—taking the temperature and understanding people’s interests—we feel that it is reasonable to include communities of interest. That is different from the rather legalistic mechanism of compulsory purchase and community takeover that is included in the part of the bill on land reform.

The issue that I have with Ken Macintosh is that I do not have many issues. We are largely on the same page. The committee recommended that a parliamentary process should be enshrined in legislation and that is what we are both trying to do. The Government’s proposal and the proposal from Alex Rowley would both require 40 days of formal consideration by the Parliament; Alex Rowley’s position would require that period of consideration to extend to 60 days.

However, it is standard for any Scottish Government consultation—well, it would typically be expected—that there would be 90 days for public scrutiny. In that period, there would be nothing to prevent parliamentary committees from considering the issues or to prevent business managers from scheduling debates. Those options are all open. In fact, under the Government’s approach, the longer period of consultation would offer a wider opportunity for the Parliament to consult during that time. It has been highlighted that an explanation is needed, and amendment 36 deals with that issue. Perhaps Cameron Buchanan and I simply differ on the question of whether determining outcomes should be an executive or legislative function.

Reporting happens at present whenever the statistics are available. If there are determined outcomes, statistics are published almost weekly. There were statistics out today—there is day-by-day reporting against the outcomes that have been set. If outcomes have been set in one context and there are statistics coming out, that produces a real-time response, so to restrict reporting purely to timescales that are set out in legislation would be counterproductive to the desire to maintain the report on outcomes as a living document that is continually updated.

In conclusion, I think that I and other members are very close to one another in terms of where we want to be. We want a parliamentary process, and we have one. We also want a participative process out in the country so that everybody can take part in determining the national outcomes. I hope that members in the Parliament will support the amendments in my name.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We are already way over time and we are only on the first group, so that will have implications for the rest of the afternoon. I ask for brevity from all members for the rest of the day.

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. Prior to that, there will be a five-minute suspension because it is the first division at stage 3.

15:02 Meeting suspended.

15:07 On resuming—

We move to the division on amendment 27.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 65, Against 54, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 27 agreed to.

Amendment 28 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 70, Against 36, Abstentions 15.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Amendment 147 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The question is, that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 69, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 147 disagreed to.

Amendments 29 to 33 moved—[Marco Biagi].

Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 29 to 33?

Members: Yes.

Before I ask the questions on amendments 29 to 33, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 9.8.5A, to extend the time limit for groups 1 and 2 by 10 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit for groups 1 and 2 be extended by 10 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

Amendments 29 to 32 agreed to.

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 105, Against 2, Abstentions 13.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Section 1A—Regulations under section 1(1): procedure

Amendment 148 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The question is, that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 148 disagreed to.

Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 34 to 39?

Members: Yes.

I will put questions on the amendments separately.

Amendment 34 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 86, Against 34, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

Section 2—Review of national outcomes

Amendments 35 to 37 moved—[Marco Biagi]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Reports

Amendment 38 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 65, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 agreed to.

Amendment 39 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 101, Against 19, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

I reiterate that if anyone wishes to object to an amendment, they must shout “No” clearly, because if neither I nor the clerks hear we will move on and we will not return to a vote on that amendment.

I call amendment 40, in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 27. I remind members that if amendment 40 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 149 because of pre-emption.

Amendment 40 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 65, Against 56, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 40 agreed to.

I will therefore move on to amendment 150.

Section 3A—Interpretation of Part 1

Amendment 150 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The question is, that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 55, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 150 disagreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We come to group 2, on the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Amendment 151, in the name of Tavish Scott, is the only amendment in the group.

Mr Scott, I am afraid that your time is up. Could you start to conclude?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Let me finish with the observations that the COSLA spokesman in this area made to the minister. He observed that it is important to—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that you really must hurry up.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am doing my best, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Otherwise, I will have to cut you off. I cannot call anyone else to speak on the group, so—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Can I finish the sentence?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please hurry.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will just move the amendment and ask the Parliament to support it.

I move amendment 151.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. I should have said that I am extending the debate on this group of amendments under rule 9.8.4A(a) to allow those with the right to speak to do so. I should have said that before I called Tavish Scott. I cannot call anyone else who wishes to speak. I now call the minister.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

As a Government, we believe that the people who live and work in Scotland are best placed to make decisions about our future. That is the essence of self-determination, and accordingly we, too, are committed to subsidiarity and local decision making in public life.

The Scottish Government works very much in partnership with local government and we share a vision of strengthened community planning, involvement and empowerment. Indeed, the success of our joint working was highlighted by the Council of Europe last year. Our commitment to local autonomy, self-determination and governance is not only central to our proposals in the bill but fundamental to our wider approach to public service reform and local government.

The European Charter of Local Self-Government is a widely recognised articulation of the principles of local autonomy to which we are bound, as an international treaty obligation, by ratification in 1998 at the Council of Europe. Our actions are therefore already guided by the provisions of the charter. It commits us to applying basic rules guaranteeing the political, administrative and financial independence of local authorities. Crucially, it provides that the principle of local self-government will be recognised in domestic legislation and, where practicable, in the constitution. The explanatory notes to the charter already recognise that states that do not have a written constitution, such as the UK, will be unable to give that constitutional protection.

This Government believes in a written constitution and would wish to see local government covered by it. A mention only in legislation does not carry the same force or have the same effect and could be annulled by future Governments rather more easily.

Legislation enacting the principles of the charter already exists in the form of the local government acts that set out the powers and responsibilities of our councils. We believe that those acts are in accordance with all the provisions that the charter requires. We have repeatedly said to local government partners that if they think that we are not in compliance with any parts of the charter they should show us examples so that we can rectify the situation.

Since the concordat, the Scottish Government and local government have worked constructively in partnership across a range of issues. Of course there have been disagreements, but the strength of any relationship is in how the parties work through disagreements. That collective working together and decision making has been demonstrated through examples such as the large-scale reduction in budget ring fencing, the work that we are taking forward with the islands areas ministerial working group, our collaborative working with COSLA to strengthen community planning and, of course, the bill itself.

I acknowledge COSLA’s work in bringing the issue to the fore; indeed, I discussed it personally with Councillor McGuigan earlier this week. Although we might disagree on the issue of the charter, we are united in recognising that local councils are an integral and essential element of overall good governance in Scotland. We remain of the view that the only way in which to go beyond legislation on the issue would be to institute a constitutional protection, which would further safeguard the charter’s provisions.

I ask Mr Scott to withdraw amendment 151.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask Tavish Scott to wind up.

Ken Macintosh

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that there is an awful lot of business to get through today, but my understanding is that there are only two or three areas of contention. It would be unfortunate if, for example, Labour colleagues were unable to explain why we support the Liberals on amendment 151 and why we disagree with the minister’s view that what amendment 151 seeks is not necessary. Would it be possible for you to think about the time that is available to discuss the areas of contention? That would allow, for example, Mr Scott to get the chance to fully develop his argument and others to be able to express themselves and to say what we agree on, because there are huge areas of the bill on which we agree.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I take your point, Mr Macintosh, and I think that it is regrettable that we are so far behind at this stage. That is a problem because of how the timings have been worked out and how time has been allocated this afternoon. Unfortunately, my hands are tied because of the earlier motion. However, I can invite a member to move a motion to extend the time for this debate by 10 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the debate be extended by 10 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

I now call Tavish Scott to wind up and indicate whether—sorry, I call Ken Macintosh for a brief speech. [Applause.] Order, please, or we will immediately need to further extend the debate.

Ken Macintosh

Presiding Officer, you will be relieved to hear that I have only a brief contribution.

I want simply to say that the European Charter of Local Self-Government guarantees the political, administrative and financial independence of local authorities. I believe that it is the first European law that encapsulates in legislation the principle of subsidiarity. I would have thought—in fact, I would have hoped—that an Administration that is occasionally subject to criticism for its overcentralising tendencies would have embraced the opportunity to prove that its position is otherwise. It is worth noting that before the general election not just COSLA but every local administration across England, Northern Ireland and Wales called for any future Administration to embrace the charter and put it into any constitutional settlement.

I am slightly disappointed by the Government’s view on the charter, but we commend Tavish Scott for lodging his amendment.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Clare Adamson, too, for a brief contribution.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Tavish Scott and Ken Macintosh have brought to light the importance of the charter. It is a timely reminder of how important European Union membership is to Scotland’s future. The European Charter of Local Self-Government was signed by the UK Government in 1997, formally binding the UK Government and successive Governments, and their devolved Assemblies and devolved Administrations, to respect its terms and implement its requirements.

Some of the requirements are specific to a written constitution. However, in its explanatory report, the charter recognises the UK’s constitutional arrangement and suggests that no legislation is needed. On article 2, the explanatory report says that the

“article provides that the principle of local self-government should be enshrined in written law.”

It goes on to say:

“It was also recognised that countries not having a written constitution but a constitution to be found in various documents and sources might encounter specific difficulties or even be unable to make that commitment.”

Given Scottish law as it stands, I do not think that amendment 151 would give any of the protections that Tavish Scott seeks. On that basis, we should reject the amendment, as we already have protection in Scottish law.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Finally, I call Tavish Scott to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw the amendment.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am grateful to Ken Macintosh for the opportunity to thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing further debate on the matter.

I take the minister’s points about the constitutional aspects. There is a perfectly fair argument about that, but the point is that for many of us—including, privately, the minister, I suspect—and particularly for local government, the amendment represents a step forward and we should take the opportunity to take that step in Parliament and in law, as it strengthens the very arguments that the minister made.

I cannot take the minister’s arguments on centralisation too seriously. After all, the Government has replaced ring fencing with the straitjacket of the council tax freeze—whether members consider that good, bad or indifferent, local government sees it as a straitjacket on what it can do, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I am grateful to the minister for mentioning the concordat. We have not heard tell of that for about four years; it used to be mentioned every week at First Minister’s questions, but no longer. The concordat ises not just historic, but is a point of history. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order. Mr Scott has little time to make his point and we must hear him.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I will stop there, but I wish to press the amendment.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 151 disagreed to.

Section 5—Local outcomes improvement plan

Group 3 is on “Community planning—locality plans etc”. Amendment 1, in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, is grouped with amendments 2 to 8.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

During stage 2 consideration of provisions on community planning, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and I discussed duties that should be imposed on community planning partnerships to undertake locality planning. Such duties include working with communities to prepare, publish and deliver plans that are aimed at improving outcomes for local communities on a smaller level than a whole CPP area. Although I could not agree to the amendments that Alex Rowley lodged, I undertook to work with Labour members of that committee to introduce community planning at a more neighbourhood level. I have appreciated the constructive involvement of those members and the discussions that I have had with them.

Amendment 1 requires CPPs to include a description of the needs and circumstances of persons in their CPP areas in their local outcomes improvement plans.

Amendments 2 and 3 are minor amendments in consequence of amendments 4 to 7, which introduce locality planning and locality plan improvement reports.

Amendment 4 imposes duties on each CPP to identify each geographic locality in their area where persons experience significantly poorer outcomes than are experienced by persons who reside in other localities in that area or significantly poorer outcomes than are experienced generally by persons who reside in Scotland.

Amendment 5 imposes duties on each CPP to prepare and publish a locality plan for each locality that it has identified as experiencing the significantly poorer outcomes referred to in amendment 4. To further encourage locality planning, the amendment makes it clear that CPPs may also prepare and publish locality plans for other areas. I encourage them all to consider doing that.

Amendment 6 imposes a duty on each CPP to keep under review the question whether it is making progress in improving the achievement of each local outcome that the locality plan refers to. CPPs must also review the locality plan, and they may revise it.

Amendment 7 imposes a duty on each CPP to prepare and publish a locality plan progress report for each locality plan that it publishes for each reporting year.

The provisions in amendments 5 to 7 for locality plans broadly echo the corresponding duties on CPPs around their local outcomes improvement plans under sections 5 to 7. That is part of our wider programme of community empowerment. On that basis, I hope that the amendments will be supported.

Amendment 8 adds a definition of locality to the interpretation section for part 2, in consequence of amendment 4.

I hope that those amendments, which began with the Opposition and have been taken on by the Government, will command wide support around the chamber.

I move amendment 1.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Four members wish to speak. If they all take a minute, I should be able to fit everyone in.

Ken Macintosh

I do not wish to add anything to the substantive arguments that the minister made. I mention in the interests of transparency that a number of outstanding issues were left hanging from stage 2. I acknowledge that the minister consulted Labour members—Alex Rowley, Cara Hilton, me and others. I thank him for those efforts and offer our support for the amendments.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

We quite agree with amendments 1 to 3, but amendments 4 to 8 raise concerns not because of their practical content but because of the principle that they threaten. A bill about empowering communities should do just that. Communities should be able to set their own priorities and aims for improvement, including where they apply. If a community planning partnership is to be empowered, it should not be told which studies to do and which areas to focus on; community planning partnerships should be able to decide that for themselves. The point is not that improving outcomes for disadvantaged communities is the wrong aim but that communities should be left to set their own priorities and be free to use their resources as they see fit.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I welcome the constructive discussions that took place to get us to the amendments.

Cameron Buchanan has got the wrong end of the stick entirely. The amendments will ensure that communities at a very low level—at a very local or neighbourhood level—have a say instead of being dictated to completely and utterly by a community planning partnership that many folk will think is distant. I urge him to rethink what he just said and to back the amendments, which will do much to empower communities—particularly those that are disadvantaged.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I welcome the amendments. It is good that the top-down process of community planning will become far more localised because of the proposals. Credit goes to the minister and Alex Rowley, who pressed those issues strongly in committee.

I have only one question to the minister. We have a detailed process for the integration of health and social care, in which there have to be locality plans. Many people are asking what the relationship will be between the locality plans of the integration authorities and the locality plans in question. If the minister could shed any light on that, that would be helpful.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I said that four members wished to speak, but John Wilson has also made a request to speak.

John Wilson (Independent, Central Scotland)

I seek clarification from the minister on amendment 5, which will insert a section on locality plans after section 7. Subsection (4) in amendment 5 says:

“In preparing a locality plan, a community planning partnership must consult—

(a) such community bodies as it considers appropriate”.

Will community planning partnerships be expected to extend the consultation as widely as possible and not to exclude groups that they might feel that they could exclude?

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am happy to address all the concerns that have been expressed and to answer the specific questions that have been raised.

On the point made by John Wilson, it is clear that, as a result of the bill, there will be a lot of duties on CPPs to foster participation, particularly by underrepresented socioeconomic groups. That, too, will come under the ambit of locality planning.

I have to disagree with Cameron Buchanan’s take on the matter; indeed, I wonder whether there might be a misunderstanding or a difference of interpretation. CPPs are valuable because they bring to the table not just the council but all the public, third sector and private partners in an area and do so at the level of a local authority area. I hope that we share the aim of replicating some of that work at a more local level, and the amendments in the group will give flexibility in dividing up an area.

The initial proposal was based on community council units, but the amendments in the group will make things flexible by allowing the CPP to base its approach on whatever division of the local authority area it thinks is sensible or worth while. Some might find interaction with health and social care localities to be a sensible approach, while others might choose not to align things in that way—that will be down to local decision making.

Nevertheless, it is important that all CPPs recognise that, as part of our thrust in the bill to target areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, locality plans must at a minimum be delivered to areas that are suffering particular disadvantage relative to the rest of the local authority area in question or relative to Scotland. They must also recognise that work must be undertaken in those areas to recognise their particular problems at neighbourhood level. There is nothing to stop a CPP producing locality plans for its entire area, but the areas that I just referred to must be targeted.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: Yes.

Are we agreed?

Members: Yes.

Can I ask members not to say yes if they agree and to shout no if they disagree? I will put the question again, because I thought that I heard a no, and I want to be clear. Are we agreed?

Members: Yes.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Do members object to a single question being put on amendments 2 to 8?

Members: Yes.

In that case, I will put the question on each amendment individually.

Section 7—Local outcomes improvement plan: progress report

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Marco Biagi]—and agreed to.

After section 7

Amendment 4 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 104, Against 14, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 16, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 104, Against 11, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 15, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Section 13—Interpretation of Part 2

Amendment 8 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on types of group entitled to make participation requests. Amendment 9, in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, is grouped with amendments 10 and 11.

I let Parliament know that, as we are nearing the agreed time limit under rule 9.8.4.A, I consider it necessary to allow the debate on groups 3 to 6 to continue beyond the limit.

After section 24

Group 5 is on participation requests, appeals and reviews. Amendment 42, in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, is grouped with amendment 43.

Once again, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, to extend the time limit for group 5 by 10 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit for group 5 be extended by 10 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

That allows me to call two members who want to contribute to the group, but their contributions should be brief.

Ken Macintosh

I fully agree with the minister that the bill is all about improving the involvement and participation of communities. The minister seems to suggest that it will be rare for communities to seek to participate and to have their participation request turned down by a public body. That is true, but the right to appeal such a decision should be enshrined in our legislation.

In support of that argument, I will quote no less an authority than Michael Russell MSP, who argued at stage 2 on appeals on asset transfers that

“there is no doubt that, in a very few exceptional cases, giving community bodies a route of appeal to Scottish ministers could be beneficial because it would strengthen part of the bill’s focus on openness, transparency and consistency. It may well be a proportionate measure.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 11 March 2015; c 43.]

I could not have put it better myself. That is why the committee agreed to the amendment at stage 2. Rather than taking that amendment out and replacing it with a Government power to regulate, I ask the minister to rethink his approach. We are talking about shifting the balance of power so that public bodies know that any decisions that they take might be challenged because there is an appeals mechanism. It is important that we give the communities the power, not the public body. I urge the minister to withdraw the amendment.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I listened to what Ken Macintosh had to say and I have read the Official Report of stage 2. Although I genuinely appreciate what Alex Rowley was trying to do at stage 2—and I am sure that he will understand my position on community empowerment, because I am a former member of the committee—what the bill says at the moment will prove to be unworkable in many cases. As it stands, the bill could allow a confrontational approach to be taken. I know that that is not what the section intends, but I fear that that is what would happen. If an individual gets to the point of making an appeal on an issue, clearly and understandably their feelings will be running high.

Amendment 42 will assist with such situations by providing for a power to make regulations on appeals and reviews. That will not preclude an appeal and a review system if that is found to be required. Amendment 44, which is to be discussed shortly, calls on ministers to review the operation of participation requests within three years of their coming into operation. I therefore support amendments 42 and 43.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As I have said, we have taken on board the case that is being made. There is provision in the bill. The contrast between what Michael Russell said and the section that we are discussing is that, with asset transfers, there is a tangible, physical asset, and the difference between that and a constructive relationship and dialogue could not be bigger. That is why it might be valid to make a distinction for the takeover of services.

I have one example. If a council tenants association wants to discuss how a concierge area should be decorated, makes a participation request to the council and gets knocked back, under the bill as it stands, without amendments 42 and 43, that decision could be appealed straight to ministers. If people believe that that is the right way for things to be decided, they are welcome to vote for that. However, if they do, please let them never again come to the chamber and accuse the Government of centralisation.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a one-minute division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is For 81, Against 35, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

Section 24A—Appeals

Amendment 43 moved—[Marco Biagi].

The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is For 86, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 43 agreed to.

Section 25A—Annual reports

Before I call group 6—after which my colleague John Scott will take the chair—I say to the chamber that the anticipated timings for this stage 3 are very far from the reality. I will now go and look carefully at the timings for the rest of this afternoon and this evening.

Group 6 is on participation request and asset transfer request reports. Amendment 12, in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment, is grouped with amendments 44 and 19.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

At stage 2, following the committee’s recommendation, I brought forward provisions to require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on asset transfer requests and participation requests. Those reports will set out the number of requests received and their results, as well as how the authority is promoting and supporting the use of the requests.

John Wilson proposed that a deadline should be set for the reports to be produced. We have sought the views of some of our key stakeholders in the public sector and the third sector, including the Development Trusts Association Scotland, the Scottish Community Development Centre, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Barnardo’s, Oxfam and the Poverty Alliance, and the majority view is that 30 June would be an appropriate date for the annual reports to be published. That is what amendments 12 and 19 put in place for participation requests and asset transfer requests respectively.

Amendment 44 is the amendment that I spoke about a minute ago in relation to appeals. It requires ministers to prepare a report on the operation of participation requests within three years of them coming into force, and to lay it before Parliament.

I move amendment 12.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Before I call other speakers, I want to let Parliament know that, as we have passed the agreed time limit, under rule 9.8.4.A(a) I consider it necessary to allow the debate to continue beyond the limit in order to allow those with a right to speak on amendments in the group to do so.

I offer the minister the opportunity to wind up.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I will waive that opportunity.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

After section 25A

Amendment 44 moved—[Marco Biagi]—and agreed to.

Section 28—Meaning of “community”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on changes related to the type of body that a community body, crofting community body or part 3A community body is and duties on such bodies. Amendment 45, in the name of the Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, is grouped with amendments 47 to 49, 62, 70, 72, 74 to 76, 78, 82 to 85 and 87.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The purpose of amendment 45 is to extend the ability of a community body to define its community by reference to postcode unit or postcode units to both Scottish charitable incorporated organisations—SCIOs—and community benefit societies—bencoms.

The purpose of amendments 48, 49, 82 to 85 and 87 is to update the provisions in part 2 and the new part 3A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which set out what type of connection a community is required to have with the land that is the subject of an application under part 2 to register an interest in land or under part 3A to apply to exercise the right to buy.

Amendment 48 ensures that the acquisition of the land by the community body has to be compatible with furthering the achievement of sustainable development of the land and is applicable to all subparagraphs of section 38(1)(b) of the 2003 act. It also makes some technical changes to the definition of a community to align with the extension in the types of community bodies that can make an application to include bencoms, SCIOs and other types of bodies as prescribed in regulations by ministers.

Amendment 48 repeals the reference to the definition of community within section 38(1)(b)(i), because it is already being set out in section 38(3). Amendment 48 also amends section 38(1)(b) by inserting two additional options for fulfilling the requirement to demonstrate a connection with the land: where the community body is a company limited by guarantee, a bencom or a SCIO, the land is in or sufficiently near to the area of the community as set out in their articles of association, constitution or registered rules; and, where the community body is a body as prescribed by ministers, the land is in or sufficiently near to the area of the community to which that body relates.

Amendment 49 makes technical changes to section 38(3) of part 2 of the 2003 act to take account of the fact that community bodies can now take the form of SCIOs, bencoms and other forms of body as prescribed in regulations by ministers.

Amendments 70 and 72 move the definition of a company limited by guarantee, so that the definition is grouped within the subsection that defines the other types of body that can constitute a community body.

Amendment 82 repeals the reference to the definition of community in the new section 97H(h), because it is superseded by the new provisions inserted by amendment 87. Amendment 83 is a minor wording change in section 97H(h)(ii). Amendment 83 is consequential to amendment 87.

Amendment 84 amends the new section 97H(h) and the connection between the community and the land, in the same way that amendment 48 does. Amendment 85 repeals the words “so defined” in section 97H(i). This amendment is consequential to the change to the definition of community introduced by amendment 87.

Amendment 87 provides that, for the purposes of section 97H in part 3A of the 2003 act, references to a community are references to the community as defined in the community body’s application.

Amendments 47, 62, 74 to 76 and 78 relate to the details of community bodies, crofting community bodies and part 3A community bodies that have to be included on the various registers that relate to the rights to buy in part 2, part 3 and the new part 3A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. They impose the same requirement to include the names and addresses of the SCIOs and the bencoms in the relevant register. They also require a community body that has registered an interest in land to notify the keeper of the registers of Scotland of a change to the community body’s name or registered or principal office as soon as is reasonably practicable after the change has been made.

Amendment 62 also enables information or documentation to be withheld from public inspection when it relates to arrangements for the raising or expenditure of money that would be used for a particular purpose in connection with the land that is the subject of the application. That ensures that sensitive financial data is appropriately safeguarded and not made publicly available.

I move amendment 45.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I would simply like to welcome the addition of SCIOs and bencoms to the available community bodies in relation to this part of the bill.

Amendment 45 agreed to.

Section 29—Modification of memorandum, articles of association or constitution

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to group 8, on minor amendments—part 4. Amendment 46, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 54, 55, 63, 64, 71, 77, 88, 89, 136, 137 and 139 to 142.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Section 35(3) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 allows ministers to compulsorily acquire land bought by a community body under part 2 of the 2003 act if ministers are satisfied that, had it not bought that land, it would no longer be entitled to do so.

Amendment 46, if agreed, will give ministers—where they exercise their power of compulsory acquisition under section 35(3) of the 2003 act—the power to make an order modifying any amendment relating to, or in connection with, the acquisition of the land. It will bring the relevant sections of parts 2, 3 and the new part 3A of the 2003 act into alignment.

Amendment 136 is consequential to amendment 46. It provides that the new power for ministers to make such an order is subject to the affirmative procedure.

The purpose of amendments 54 and 55 is to ensure consistency in the wording of section 39A of the 2003 act. The purpose of amendment 63 is to insert the new section to be inserted by section 47K of the bill after section 97 rather than 97A of the 2003 act, as there is another section 97B of the 2003 act to be inserted by section 48 of the bill. Amendment 64 renumbers that section as section 97ZA of the 2003 act.

Amendment 71 adjusts a cross-reference in section 97D(7) of the 2003 act that relates to part 3A community bodies.

Amendment 77 provides that the person who provides a document or other information, or makes a decision, a copy of which is to be registered in the part 3A register, must give a copy to the keeper of the registers of Scotland as soon as reasonably practicable.

Amendment 88 alters the paragraphing of section 97J(3) to clarify that regulations made by ministers about how the ballot is to be conducted make provision for the ascertainment and publication of: the number of persons eligible to vote in the ballot; the number who did vote; and the number of valid votes respectively cast for and against. The regulations must also make provision for the form and manner in which the result of the ballot is to be published.

Amendment 89 leaves out the unnecessary words

“of the Registers of Scotland”

because a definition of the keeper of the registers of Scotland as “the Keeper” is provided in section 97F(9) of the 2003 act.

The purpose of amendment 137 is that the power inserted by section 97D(1)(b) into the 2003 act is subject to the affirmative procedure. That power allows ministers to make regulations setting out an additional description of a body in addition to a body falling within subsection (1A), (1B) or (1C) of section 97D of the 2003 act that may be part 3A community bodies and to set out any requirements that those bodies must comply with.

Amendments 139 to 142 relate to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They amend the provisions that were inserted by Michael Russell’s stage 2 amendment. The effect of the amendments is that ministers, when making certain decisions on a right-to-buy application made under parts 2, 3 or 3A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, must have regard to that international covenant.

Amendments 140 and 141 are minor drafting amendments. Amendment 142 adds two qualifications of the reference to the covenant. The references to the covenant are qualified by:

“any amendments in force in relation to the United Kingdom for the time being, and ... any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force”.

I move amendment 46.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome Michael Russell’s stage 2 amendment on human resources issues and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and I acknowledge that the minister’s amendments 139 to 142 complete the tidying process in that respect.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I thank Claudia Beamish for her thanks.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

After section 29

Amendment 47 moved—[Aileen McLeod]—and agreed to.

Section 30—Period for indicating approval under section 38 of 2003 Act

Amendment 48 moved—[Aileen McLeod]—and agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 9 is on period for indicating approval under part 2 of 2003 act. Amendment 154, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendment 155.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Previous versions of my amendments 154 and 155 were lodged at stage 2 by my colleague on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, Dave Thompson, and were based on discussions with Community Land Scotland.

Section 30 of the bill will amend section 38 of the 2003 act, which sets out the criteria for registration of community interests. The bill will insert a new provision that precludes ministers from considering any community support that is dated earlier than six months before the date on which an application for registering a community interest in land is received by ministers. Amendment 154 seeks to increase that period to 12 months.

At stage 2, the minister stated that it is important that the approval of members of the community be current, which I acknowledge, and that a 12-month timeframe could mean that the plans or the community itself could have changed. The minister’s alternative amendment 49 would give ministers the power to alter the timeframe by regulation if it is proved that the six-month timeframe poses a barrier to communities exercising their right to buy. Assurances were given at stage 2 that the regulations would be used only to increase, and not to decrease, the timescale. My amendment 155 would give that a statutory footing to ensure that any amendment to the timeframe could not reduce it to less than six months.

I move amendment 154.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I have no doubt that Claudia Beamish’s amendments are well intentioned, but I find them to be unnecessary, given that the bill will already give ministers the ability to substitute a different period of time if they see a need to do so.

I think that six months is an appropriate period—bearing in mind the ability of ministers to alter it—in this instance, in particular. Shorter periods of time keep minds focused and probably keep up momentum. I think that both those abilities would be diminished by extending to 12 months the period for approval.

For those reasons, Conservative members will not support the amendments in group 9.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The bill will insert in the 2003 act proposed new section 38(2A), which states that, in considering an application for registration of an interest in land,

“Ministers may not take into account ... the approval of a member of the community if it was indicated earlier than 6 months before the date”

on which the part 2 application was made.

Amendment 154 would increase the period of time for approval from six months to 12 months to give ministers more flexibility to consider community support. I believe, however, that it is important for such approval to be current. If the approval was given 12 months prior to the date of application, the community’s plans or the community itself may have changed in the intervening time.

The bill will also insert in the 2003 act proposed new section 38(2B), which will give ministers the power to amend the time limit if they consider that to be desirable. I hope that that gives Claudia Beamish some reassurance, so I urge her to seek to withdraw amendment 154.

Amendment 155 would mean that ministers, when using the new power in proposed new section 38(2B) of the 2003 act to amend the six-month time limit, could not change it to a period of less than six months. I support amendment 155.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Claudia Beamish to press or to seek to withdraw amendment 154.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I press amendment 154.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 39, Against 78, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 154 disagreed to.

Amendment 155 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The question is, that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 14, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 155 agreed to.

Amendment 49 moved—[Aileen McLeod]—and agreed to.

Section 31—Procedure for late applications

Group 10 is on the time period for representations and provision of information under 2003 act. Amendment 50, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 52, 57, 58 and 144.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Amendments 50, 52, 57, 58 and 144 were lodged in response to Claudia Beamish’s stage 2 amendment 57, which sought to provide flexibility in the timescales for providing information in connection with an application that is made under part 2 or part 3A of the 2003 act. During stage 2, I committed to lodging amendments on the matter. The best approach is to increase the period at key points in the process. I have identified four areas where an extension from seven days to 14 days in which to provide information would be beneficial to the party concerned.

Amendment 50 will change from seven days to 14 days the time within which the relevant party must provide to ministers additional information in connection with a late application.

Amendment 52 will change from seven days to 14 days the time within which persons must provide ministers with further information in connection with an application.

Amendment 57 will change from seven days to 14 days the time within which the community body must provide to ministers additional information in connection with an application.

Amendment 58 will change from seven days to 14 days the time within which the community body may provide additional information in connection with circumstances that affected the ballot.

Amendment 144 will remove paragraph 2(6) from schedule 4, which is the current provision for extending seven-day time limits.

I move amendment 50.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I support the minister’s amendments, which rationalise my stage 2 amendment to extend waiting periods in late applications.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I thank Claudia Beamish for her amendment at stage 2.

Amendment 50 agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 11 is on late applications under part 2 of 2003 act. Amendment 51, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 53.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Amendments 51 and 53 have been lodged as a result of the withdrawal at stage 2 of amendment 49, which was lodged by Alex Fergusson. At stage 2 I committed to lodging a stage 3 amendment because amendment 49 did not take account of such factors as the terms on which the land was offered to the community body and the reasons why the community body rejected or did not complete the purchase.

Amendment 51 relates to the late application process in part 2 of the 2003 act. It will insert new criteria, about which ministers must be satisfied before consenting to a late application. The amendment’s purpose is to prevent a late application from being accepted if the land was offered to the same or a “similar community body” within the previous 12 months, unless, in ministers’ opinion, there are good reasons why the body did not purchase the land. Examples of things that might be considered good reasons include conditions’ being attached to the sale of the land, or the area of land being offered not meeting the community’s needs at the time.

Amendment 53 specifies that it is for ministers to decide whether a community body is a “similar community body” for the purposes of provisions in amendment 51. When considering whether a community body is “similar”, ministers will have to have regard to matters that will be set out in regulations, including how many of the named directors, other officers or named members of the two community bodies are the same.

I move amendment 51.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I am grateful to the minister for lodging amendments 51 and 53. As she acknowledged, they stem from an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and then withdrew, given the Government’s undertaking to look at the issue that I raised and to lodge its own amendment. The issue was simply that I wished to provide a bit of protection in the circumstances that the minister has described. Amendment 51 provides a better balance in the process and amendment 53 very sensibly allows a bit of flexibility in the definitions of any offer that is made, the land in question and the make-up of the community body. I am very happy to support the amendments.

Amendment 51 agreed to.

Amendments 52 and 53 moved—[Aileen McLeod]—and agreed to.

Section 32—Evidence and notification of concluded missives or option agreements

Amendments 54 and 55 moved—[Aileen McLeod]—and agreed to.

After section 33

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to group 12, on expiry of registration under part 2 of 2003 act. Amendment 56, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 156. I call the minister to move amendment 56 and to speak to both amendments in the group.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Amendment 56 relates to part 2 of the 2003 act and has been lodged as a result of the withdrawal at stage 2 of amendment 52, which was lodged by Dave Thompson. Amendment 52 would have required the keeper of the registers of Scotland to notify the community body of the expiry of a registered interest. I believe that it is more appropriate for ministers to notify the community body of the expiry.

Amendment 56 will require ministers to notify a community body that its registered interest in land is due to expire, no earlier than 12 months before the registered interest is due to expire. Ministers will have a period of 28 days from that date in which to send the notification to the community body in order to give the community body sufficient time to prepare its reregistration.

I turn to amendment 156. Under the existing provisions of part 2 of the 2003 act, a community is required to reregister its interest every 5 years. The reregistration period is designed to ensure that community support for the acquisition remains current, and that other vital aspects have not changed. Amendment 156 seeks to extend from five years to seven years the period for which a registration of interest lasts. However, that would no longer provide an indication of the community’s current support for the acquisition, or identify other important changes to the circumstances that justified the original registration of interest.

I intend to introduce, under sections 37(1) and 98(3) of the 2003 act, a more streamlined form to be used by community bodies for reregistration, which will make the five-yearly reregistration process less onerous while ensuring that community support for the acquisition remains current. We therefore propose to retain the current five-year period, so I ask that Claudia Beamish not move amendment 156.

I move amendment 56.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I invite Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 156 and other amendments in the group.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Although I have listened carefully to what the minister has said, I would like to reiterate some points relating to amendment 156 for Parliament to consider.

A version of amendment 156 was initially lodged at stage 2 by Dave Thompson, following discussion with Community Land Scotland. We supported that amendment at the time. It sought to extend the period for which a registration of interest lasts, from the current five years under section 44 of the 2003 act, to 10 years, which was a recommendation from the land reform review group. At the time, the minister argued that after 10 years there would no longer be an indication of the community’s support for the acquisition, and she has highlighted that point again today. There would also be a risk that ministers would be unaware of important changes in circumstances.

Stage 2 amendment 44 was withdrawn, but Michael Russell, who spoke to the amendment in Dave Thompson’s absence, asked the minister to

“consider ... whether that advice from the land reform review group requires further thought.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 4 March 2015; c 44.]

The minister said that she would happily look again at the amendment, but as I understand it she decided against pursuing the issue through a Government amendment.

As a compromise, and based on the minister’s comments, my amendment 156 seeks to increase the duration of the registration period to seven years. That would simplify the process for community groups. It would be a step in the direction of the land reform review group’s recommendation and it would reduce the burden that community bodies face with reregistration, notwithstanding the fact that the minister has highlighted the streamlining of the reregistration process.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I am afraid that we cannot agree with Claudia Beamish’s amendment 156. Five-year intervals are generally accepted as a standard period—for instance, in the planning process. It seems to me that five years is the right period before reregistration would be required, especially because the process of reregistration is to be considerably simplified as a result of the bill and the regulations that are to come.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

On amendment 156, I concur with Alex Fergusson. I consider five years to be a decent period of time within which community support can be demonstrated. Amendment 56 will ensure that community bodies have adequate time to carry out reregistration as smoothly as possible. On that basis, I urge members to support amendment 56.

Amendment 56 agreed to.

Amendment 156 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 13 is on notifications relating to applications, appeals et cetera under 2003 act. Amendment 59, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 60, 61, 91, 93 and 94.

Group 14 is on power to modify information required in application for consent under part 3 of 2003 act. Amendment 157, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is the only amendment in the group.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

My amendment 157 follows discussion with Community Land Scotland. Section 73 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 deals with the process of applying to exercise the crofting community right to buy. Section 73(5) specifies certain information that should be included in the application, with reference to maps, where appropriate. Community Land Scotland has highlighted that those requirements remain potentially onerous for a crofting community body.

Amendment 157 would insert a new subsection giving ministers the option to modify the paragraphs in section 73(5) of the 2003 act, should the need arise, in order to address such concerns in regulations. Those regulations could also provide for specific paragraphs in section 73(5) not to apply in such circumstances as ministers may specify.

The proposed provisions give ministers flexibility to act where appropriate. I hope that colleagues will support amendment 157, which I believe is a good and proportionate addition to the bill.

I move amendment 157.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Section 73(5) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 requires a crofting community body, as part of its crofting community right-to-buy application, to provide certain information about the land that is the subject of its application. Those requirements were amended at stage 2 of the bill to make them less onerous.

Ministers currently have a power to set out in regulations the kind of information that must be included in or accompany an application, but that power is subject to the minimum requirements set out in section 73(5). If agreed to, amendment 157 will add a provision that will give ministers a regulation-making power, allowing them to amend or repeal the minimum requirements for information that must be included in or accompany the application. That would allow ministers to change or remove the requirements in section 73(5), should it be identified in the future that those requirements are still considered to be too onerous for a crofting community body to comply with.

I support amendment 157.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Breaking with convention, I will allow Mike Russell to speak.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Not everybody will be grateful for that, Presiding Officer.

I will make two points, to which amendment 157 draws attention. The first one is the need for flexibility, in all arrangements to do with community purchase, in taking down the barriers to community purchase that exist. I commend the minister for her very practical approach throughout our consideration of the bill. The amendment very sensibly removes barriers that would otherwise deter some communities.

The second point is about the important role that Community Land Scotland and other organisations have played in helping the committee that examined this part of the bill and in helping the Government—having worked closely with it—to understand how important it is that community purchase is encouraged and enabled and that any difficulties that exist in legislation are minimised to the maximum degree.

I am grateful to the minister and to Sarah Boyack for their participation in considering the matter, and I am particularly grateful to Community Land Scotland.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I will press amendment 157. I thank the minister for her helpful approach, and I thank Mike Russell for his support. I hope that all colleagues will feel able to support this useful, if minor, amendment.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 15 is on “Eligible land under Part 3A of 2003 Act etc.—general”. Amendment 65, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 158, 68, 159, 69, 161, 164 and 135. I draw members’ attention to the fact that, if amendment 160, which is in group 17, is agreed to, we will be unable to call amendment 161 because of pre-emption.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Under new section 97C of the 2003 act, ministers will be required to make regulations setting out what factors they must have regard to when deciding whether, in their opinion, land is eligible under part 3A of that act. The definition of “eligible land” was a key aspect of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s consideration of the bill, and there are a number of amendments still to come on that subject. However, getting the detail of how the eligibility of land is to be judged will be crucial.

I lodged amendments at stage 2 that would have required ministers to consult on the required regulations within a year of royal assent. At the time, I listened to the minister’s assurances that consultation forms a key part of the regulation-making process, which I welcome. However, I am very keen to ensure that questions around how the eligibility of land is to be judged are settled at the earliest opportunity. I am concerned that, with the proposed land reform bill following so closely on the heels of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, there is a risk that regulations arising from both bills will be bundled together and delayed further down the line.

My amendment 158 would require a draft statutory instrument containing the regulations to be laid before Parliament within 18 months of royal assent. The minister committed in her opening remarks to consultation immediately after the bill is passed. However, can she clarify when she expects the statutory instruments to come into force? It is important that she clarifies that.

I will comment briefly on Alex Fergusson’s amendments 161 and 164. I think that the principle behind the amendments is reasonable, because it is about ensuring that tenants, as well as owners, have a right to comment. However, I would like the minister to clarify what would happen if a community, despite its best endeavours, cannot identify the tenants. Would that potentially knock out or invalidate the community’s application? I am very keen for the minister to clarify in her closing remarks what would happen in that situation.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

An amendment similar to amendment 159 was lodged at stage 2 by Sarah Boyack. Amendment 159 concerns the exemption from part 3A of land that is owned or occupied by the Crown by virtue of its having been vested in the Crown as bona vacantia, or of its having fallen to the Crown as ultimus haeres. I do not intend to go into the definitions of those terms, as the minister highlighted them earlier. However, clarification was sought at stage 2 on the need for the exemption when other Crown land is included by virtue of section 100(2) of the 2003 act. There is no similar exemption from the definition of “eligible crofting land” in part 3 of the 2003 act. I hope that the minister will be able to comment on that in her closing remarks.

In her remarks to the committee at stage 2 and again today, the minister provided background on the process for land that is classed as bona vacantia and ultimus haeres. Such land is claimed by the Crown through the Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer, whose purpose is to seek to realise the value of any land through disposal or disclaimer. The minister has already highlighted that the remembrancer does not seek to retain land and is not resourced to manage land on an on-going basis.

The minister said that in circumstances where land is classified as bona vacantia or ultimus haeres, a community body has the option of contacting the remembrancer with a view to acquiring the land. My concern would be that by specifically excluding such land, community bodies might be put off from showing their potential interest in it. At the same time, including the land as eligible would not prevent the remembrancer from disposing of land as usual unless there was community interest, in which case the benefit to the community must surely carry some weight.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I lodged amendments 161 and 164 to try to ensure that any tenant of a building or structure on land that is subject to a community purchase has the opportunity to give their views formally, having been duly identified in the process. I cannot help but believe that tenants are being discriminated against by the Government in amendments 68 and 69, which appear to create two separate types of homemakers: those who own their homes and those who rent them. If someone owns their home they will not be impacted by a community right to buy, but if they rent their home, they will be—and possibly quite heavily.

There seems to be an unwritten principle in the Government’s amendments 68 and 69 that a community will, per se and of necessity, be a more benevolent landlord than any individual or company. I do not accept that that would always be the case. Amendments 161 and 164 seek to redress some of the imbalance in favour of the tenant. I hope that the Parliament will note that it is the Scottish Conservatives who are standing up for the interests of tenants in relation to the bill.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I will try to take on board some of the points that have been raised. Amendments 68 and 69 ensure that communities are able to fully utilise the right to buy without the risk that land is ineligible due to the fact that it contains areas of land that are occupied by tenants as a home. I clarify that the amendments confer the power to set out the classes of occupancy et cetera that are included in part 3A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

On the points raised by Claudia Beamish and Sarah Boyack, if a community body did not identify a tenant, the application would not be compliant. However, we will ensure that guidance is available to limit the risk of that happening.

On amendment 158, we intend to begin consultation with stakeholders on the proposed content of the instrument shortly after the completion of the bill’s passage through the Scottish Parliament. As I said in my opening remarks, stakeholder engagement is an essential part and parcel of the community right-to-buy process. The draft instrument will be laid before the Scottish Parliament as the parliamentary timetable permits.

Amendment 65 agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 16 is on eligible land under part 3A of the 2003 act—the use or management of land causing harm. Amendment 66, in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, is grouped with amendments 67, 67A, 67B, 73, 79 to 81, 86, 86A to 86D, 90, 92, 138 and 146.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The bill, if it is passed, will introduce a new part 3A into the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 that will give communities a right to buy land that is, in the Scottish ministers’ opinion, wholly or mainly abandoned or neglected. Mr Russell lodged an amendment at stage 2 that sought to expand that description to include land that is

“in substantial need of sustainable development”.

Amendments 66 and 67 add provisions to widen the definition of eligible land to include land whose use or management results in or causes harm, which is not negligible harm, to the environmental wellbeing of a relevant community.

Environmental wellbeing is not being defined in the bill as I want it to have a broad meaning for the purposes of part 3A of the 2003 act and not to be restricted to harm that is caused to just the physical condition of the community. Harm to the community’s environmental wellbeing, for example, may affect the amenity of the community. That may include cases where the use or management of the land causes or results in harm to the community such as the detrimental impact that a group of boarded-up shops, unoccupied housing or algae-filled ponds that are becoming health hazards might have on the community’s environmental wellbeing.

Amendments 73, 90 and 92 change the title of the register that is to be set up by the keeper of the registers of Scotland to the “Register of Community Interests in Abandoned, Neglected or Detrimental Land”.

Amendment 79 requires the community body to set out in its application why it considers that the land is being used or managed in such a way as to result in or cause harm to the community’s environmental wellbeing, if that is the basis for the application. Amendment 80 adds a provision to require a community body to include details of any requests that have been made to regulators to take action that could remedy or mitigate the harm. Amendment 81 provides that, where relevant, landowners are invited to give information about whether they consider that the use or management of their land is causing or resulting in harm to the community’s environmental wellbeing.

Amendment 86 provides that, in order to consent to an application, the Scottish ministers must be satisfied, in addition to the existing criteria in section 97H of the 2003 act, that the harm is unlikely to be removed by the current owner if they continue to be the owner of the land. Ministers must also be satisfied that the community body has made a request to any relevant regulators to take action to remedy or mitigate the harm to the community’s environmental wellbeing and that the body’s ownership of the land will be consistent with reducing the harm. Ministers will have the power to set out who the relevant regulators are.

Amendments 67A and 67B would give a community the right to apply to purchase land when the use or management of the land was resulting in or causing harm to the community’s environmental and social wellbeing. That would introduce a double test in which both conditions had to be met, so it would be more difficult for community bodies to satisfy the test.

Social wellbeing is a broad concept. Defining it separately from environmental wellbeing makes it a distinct consideration. There was not time between stages 2 and 3 to consult fully on whether there is evidence of harm being caused to the social wellbeing of communities as a result of the use or management of land and, if so, what the extent of that is. It would be important to do that before asking the Parliament to confer powers that authorise the compulsory acquisition of land. Therefore, the bill as it is proposed to be amended by the Scottish Government takes matters as far as I consider appropriate at this time.

Amendment 86A would change the criteria that must be satisfied before ministers can consent to an application that relates to the use or management of land that is resulting in or causing harm to a relevant community’s environmental wellbeing so that those criteria applied if the part 3A community body was making an application on the basis that harm was being caused to the relevant community’s environmental and social wellbeing.

Amendment 86B would require that, in order to consent to an application, ministers would have to be satisfied that the exercise of the right to buy by the part 3A community body was compatible with removing or substantially removing the harm to the relevant community’s environmental and social wellbeing. Amendment 86C would amend the definition of a relevant regulator so that a regulator was relevant if it could be considered to be so after having regard to the harm to the relevant community’s environmental and social wellbeing. Amendment 86D would amend the definition of a regulatory function so that a regulatory function was relevant if it could be considered to be so after having regard to the harm to the relevant community’s environmental and social wellbeing.

I appreciate the helpful intention of Sarah Boyack’s amendments, given how hard everyone has worked on the issue to find the right way forward. I am certain that we are all trying to get to the same place, but the question is how we do that in the most effective way. Adding the social wellbeing dimension to the definition narrows the test for what constitutes eligible land from what it would be if amendment 67 were agreed to unamended, because the harm that is caused has to be not only environmental but social. If the harm that is caused is environmental but not social, land will not meet the test, as it would not meet both elements.

Although I am absolutely sure that the intention was not to introduce an additional test for community bodies and that that was not the proposal’s purpose, I ask Sarah Boyack not to press amendments 67A, 67B, 86A and 86B and the consequential amendments 86C and 86D, to ensure that such a test is not introduced. It is also the Scottish Government’s view that those amendments are outwith the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence, on the basis that they do not provide sufficient foreseeability for landowners.

I reassure members that the definition of environmental wellbeing has a wide meaning and encompasses some social considerations. As I said earlier, we were not able to consult fully on extending the right to buy beyond what I have proposed in the Government amendments in the group. If Parliament were to widen the circumstances in which communities can acquire ownership of land through compulsory purchase, we would want to be clear about the evidence of the harm that the proposals would address and to consult on that to find a proportionate solution.

I give my firm commitment to work with Sarah Boyack and other members of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to look at any evidence that the use or management of land results in harm to the social wellbeing of communities, and I will seek to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Amendment 138 provides that the ministerial power that is introduced via amendment 86 will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 146 amends the long title of the bill to include abandoned, neglected or detrimental land because of the widening of the definition of eligible land for the purposes of part 3A of the 2003 act.

I move amendment 66.