Felly, wrth ffordd mewn cyf perfectionoedd ychydig yn ddïmen, ac yn ddod wrth i fy gallu ei wneud yng nghymru i ddechrau gyr regulaidd. Felly, eich cyfarfod y ddweud yng Nghymru i ddweud yng Nghymru i ddweud eich cyfarfod yn dd �mwy o bwysig iawn a ddod o gyrsafwdd yng nghymru a ddydd ei ddweud yn dd cyf Fally, cydweithio'r ddag yn ddegynau gwle gan maen nhw'n gydag yn ddiddordeb dim yn ei gyrsafwyd am yma. is here as our substitute. Welcome, Mr Stevenson. Agenda item 1 today is to decide whether to take item 4 on integrated health and social care complaints procedures in private. Are we agreed? Aged. Thank you. Agenda item 2 today is consideration of six negative SSIs. They are the Local Government Scotland Act 2004, remuneration and severance payments, amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-7, the disabled person's badges for motor vehicles Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-9, the non-domestic rates living Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-49, the non-domestic rating valuation of utility Scotland amendment order 2015, SSI 2015-50, the valuation timetable Scotland amendment order 2015, SSI 2015-51 and the local government pension scheme governing Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015-60. Members have a cover note from the clerk explaining the instruments. As you will note, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee did not have any comments to make on these instruments. Do members have any comments? No. Are we agreed not to make any recommendation to the Parliament on these instruments? Thank you very much. Our third item of business today is our consideration of the community empowerment bill at stage 2, and this is day 1 of the process. I welcome Marko Biagi, Minister for Local Government Community Empowerment, his officials and also Drew Smith as well. Before we move on to consideration of the amendments, I think that it would be helpful if I set out the procedure for stage 2 consideration. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill is introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that was published on Monday and the groupings of amendments which set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the First Amendment in each group to speak to and move their amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If he is not already spoken on the group, I will invite the minister to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding-up speech. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the First Amendment on the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the First Amendment in the group wishes to press their amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it, they should say not moved. Please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote at stage 2. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question in each section at the appropriate point. We will now move on to that marshaled list. The First Amendment is in group 1, 1043, in the name of Alec Rowley, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. I point out to members that, if amendments 1044 or 1012 in the group are agreed to, I cannot call amendments 1043 or 1050 respectively. Can I ask Alec Rowley to move amendment 1043 and speak to all amendments in the group? I am pleased to move amendment 1043. The purpose of those amendments is to ensure that the national outcomes for Scotland are created through a participative process that involves the people of Scotland and that all people have the opportunity to have a say in the outputs. To require Scottish ministers to lay a report before the Scottish Parliament every two years outlining the progress that is made towards achieving the national outcomes. That will be an important part of democratic focus in Scotland and will improve the involvement of local people in setting national outcomes. Those amendments are needed, in my view, to ensure that the national outcomes for Scotland are created through a participative process that involves the people of Scotland. That is important because of the known benefits of focus and delivery on the achievement of outcomes. However, it is being argued that, in order for the bill to be sufficiently strengthened, it must involve all communities across Scotland and encourage their participation in setting the national outcomes. That is particularly true for those communities that are most disadvantaged and often described as hardest to reach. To ensure that ministers have involved all people who live and work in Scotland in the determination of the national outcomes, it is also suggested that there is a parliamentary mechanism for scrutiny. The bill currently states that reports must be prepared and published at the same time as Scottish Ministers consider appropriate. I would argue that there needs to be a greater duty on ministers to report on progress towards achieving the national outcomes. Scottish Ministers must, as soon as practical, after the end of a two-year period, present a report to Parliament on the extent to which national outcomes have been achieved. The preparation of this report must be a participative exercise with ministers consulting a full range of communities. That will ensure that progress towards achieving the national outcomes is transparent. It will involve the Parliament itself much more in the process and goes further to involving the Parliament in that process and national outcomes. It will create a far greater transparency and accountability and a far greater involvement of local people and communities across Scotland. Mr Riley, can I call on the minister to speak to amendment 1003 and other amendments in the group? Thank you. It is a pleasure to be in front of the committee again, and I hope that this goes as well as the last stage 2 that I attended. Alex Riley set out his view on how Parliament should be involved. We also have the delegated powers and law reform committee's recommendation that the Scottish Parliament should have a more active scrutiny role in relation to national outcomes. I agree with both that the scrutiny role of the Scottish Parliament should be strengthened in that process. I believe that the way to do that is through consultation under rule 17.5 of the Scottish Parliament's standing orders. That process best reflects the separation of powers between an executive responsible for setting the strategic direction of government and a Parliament responsible for holding the Government to account for its progress. Therefore, I do not think that the procedure that Alex Riley proposes is the best one. I will go through my amendments in detail, but in summary they would require Scottish ministers to consult with the Parliament when determining and also when reviewing national outcomes. The effect of amendment 1003 is that having consulted such persons as they consider appropriate in order to determine the draft national outcomes, Scottish ministers must then consult the Scottish Parliament. Amendment 1004 is in consequence of amendment 1003 and provides that the national outcomes cannot be published until the Scottish Parliament has been consulted. 1005 sets the period for parliamentary consultation at 40 days, beginning with the day the consultation document is laid before the Parliament or otherwise provided to the clerk. The process set out at rule 17.5 of the Scottish Parliament's standing orders will apply to the consultation. Do not propose to go into further detail on that unless members would find it helpful. 1008 provides that in any review of the national outcomes the Scottish ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate. Amendment 10012 removes the previous more restricted provision on this point, which had limited the consultation to where revisions were to be made. Amendment 1009 provides that the Scottish Parliament is to be consulted in any review of the national outcomes. If, after a review has taken place, revisions are proposed to the national outcomes, this amendment provides that the Scottish Parliament will also be consulted on those revisions. If, after a review has taken place, no revisions are proposed, the Scottish Parliament will still be consulted on the existing national outcomes. Amendment 1014 specifies that the period for this parliamentary consultation is 40 days, the process set out at rule 17.5 of the Scottish Parliament's standing orders would apply to the consultation. Amendments 1010 and 1011 provide that national outcomes may not be republished until after the 40-day period of consultation with the Scottish Parliament. Turning to Alex Rowley's proposal for a list of consultees, there are some concerns. By identifying certain individuals and groups, the scope of the consultation is unavoidably narrowed, with some persons giving greater significance in statute than others. For example, the list gives prominence to some organisations such as those working for children and young people, but not those working in other sectors such as, for example, homeless people or equality organisations. The current wording allows flexibility for the consultation process to be appropriate to different situations. For example, where a review focuses on a specialist issue, it may be more appropriate to limit the scope of consultation to those who have expertise, experience and interest in that area. On the other hand, we would anticipate that all Governments would want to consult widely and inclusively on the national outcomes as a whole. The duty needs to be carried out reasonably and as such entails that anyone who could reasonably expect to be consulted will be consulted. We have also proposed amendments that extend the requirement for consultation when the national outcomes are reviewed. The proposed amendments ensure that, in the course of any review of the national outcomes, the Scottish ministers are required to consult. Both Alex Rowley and Drew Smith proposed legislating for the provision of a report on the consultation process. I agree with the principle behind that but do not agree that it requires legislation. When the national outcomes are provided to the Parliament, we would, as a matter of good practice and indeed, I believe, any Government would provide a note on the process and findings of the consultation. That gives the Parliament an opportunity to comment on the consultation process. Finally, I would like to turn to Alex Rowley's proposals for reporting on the national outcomes. I do not think that it is appropriate to legislate for how and when future Governments report on the national outcomes, because the format and timing of the reporting should be for the Government of the day to decide. The way we communicate and receive information is moving at such a pace that we would rather allow for future innovative approaches to reporting. There have been discussions recently in Parliament about the appropriateness of certain timescales of data being reported, and that should be something that can be adapted in light of experience. A case could be made for reporting on progress at any time of the year, for example at the beginning or the end of the parliamentary session before or alongside the draft budget and so on. As such, I believe that it is best to leave this flexible and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Government reports through the Scotland Performs website, which provides an up-to-the-minute picture of progress towards the national outcomes. Updates are continually made available as soon as the latest data is published. Scotland Performs is always showing the most up-to-date information. We also provide a Scotland Performs update to support the draft budget scrutiny process, including performance scorecards and narrative to show performance against national outcomes. That is how we currently undertake our annual reporting. We would rather not limit future Governments into an inflexible model by prescribing the format and timing of reporting. I do not think that it is appropriate to ask that the Scottish ministers should consult with those listed in preparing any report on progress towards national outcomes. Any report on progress would be a factual statement based on evidence. Consultation on that does not seem appropriate in that context. I therefore invite Alex Rowley to withdraw amendment 1043 and ask him and Drew Smith not to move their other amendments. I ask the committee to support amendments 1,000, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14. I now call Drew Smith to speak to amendment 1045. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take part in stage 2 proceedings of the committee this morning. I note what the minister says and thank him for his agreement on perhaps the sentiment that we are exploring in certainly his own amendment 1045. The purpose of the amendment in my view, convener, is that it adds a greater degree of consistency, because the bill imposes a duty on community planning partnerships. The committee itself has previously concluded that the same standards of transparency and accountability should apply to others in this process. My argument would simply be that the Scottish Government in that respect should lead by example. Alex Rowley's amendments referred to reporting on the progress towards national outcomes. The two additional points that my amendment would add in would be that the Government would set out how national outcomes have been improved following consultation and demonstrate that the results of a consultation have influenced those improvements. The committee itself was interested in paragraph 107 of its stage 1 report when it suggested that we would want to see the Scottish Government lead by example in relation to consultation and engagement. I note what the minister says about not feeling that legislation would be the most appropriate way to ensure that that happens, but I would make the point that the bill does require community planning partnerships to report in this way, so it does not seem to me to be too onerous to expect the Government to do the same. I particularly wanted to address the contents of Alex Rowley's amendment 1049. I think that it has some really quite serious practical issues that are not adequately covered by the way that it is drafted. In particular, at section 3, it provides that the Scottish ministers must lay a copy of the proposed regulations before the Parliament, except that the amendment does not provide for the handcuffs that the Government has provided in its amendment that you cannot withdraw them during the consultation period. I can see that Governments could find themselves in a position where they would wish to withdraw the amendments during the consultation, which would, of course, create considerable difficulties for the consultees. In that respect, I think that the Government's approach is much to be preferred. There is stability during the consultation period, whereas the way in which 1049 is drafted does not provide that kind of stability. I also want to talk about the reporting issue. It is deceptively attractive to prescribe when reporting may be done, but the construct and the way it is produced means that, in essence, reporting cannot be done at other times. This is a wide-ranging bill covering a wide range of policy areas and subjects. The reference to the Scottish performance is very appropriate, because, of course, it may wish to provide updates at the timely point. I can see that members are getting intensely frustrated as they rise to their feet to question minister at oral questions. The minister says that he is not allowed to report under the bill and amendment that was passed on 4 March 2015. It does not allow me to report to Parliament until the particular date. Members will get intensely frustrated by that. Far better that the Government has the ability to, in a timely and appropriate way across a wide range of policy areas, make such reports and updates and disclosures as possible and that we do not get ourselves in a position of passing a piece of legislation that prevents and inhibits members from questioning and demanding answers from ministers, which the amendments carry the very real danger of doing. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? No. In which case can I call Alec Rowley to wind up and to press her withdrawal? Thank you, convener. I thank the minister for his sentiment, as Drew says in terms of this bill. I would say that you pronounce my name Alec Rowley, I see. In terms of the national outcome, and it comes to Stuart's point in terms of reporting every two years, it is right that there is a requirement to report. At that point in time, we will be able to, as a Parliament, see what progress is being made in terms of the national outcome. It should therefore not be left to the Government to decide if it is of an appropriate time or not to what progress is being made. That is why I think that it brings a greater degree of accountability into the process. Likewise, the minister says that he does want to see a greater role in terms of the further Parliament than that, which is currently outlined in the bill. I would argue that the amendments that are being put forward actually do create that greater role for Parliament, but communities should also have a far greater role in having an input into setting national outcomes and holding to account the Government of the day for doing so. I will repeat that. I think that the amendments that are being put forward will bring a greater transparency, a greater involvement and a greater accountability in terms of the whole process, and with that I would want to press. The question is that amendment 1043 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those voting against the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those abstaining, there are none. The result of the vote in amendment 1043, those in favour 4, those against 3. The question is agreed to. We move on to group 2, functions to which national outcomes relate and duty of bodies exercising those functions. I will call amendment 1001 in the name of the minister, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. I point out that, if amendment 1006 in the group is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 1046, 1047 or 1048. Minister, can I ask you to move 1001 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. This group covers a number of amendments to improve the structure and clarify points in section 1. Amendment 1001 is in response to a question from parliamentary authorities as to whether the bill placed a duty on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to have regard to the national outcomes in carrying out their functions. That was not the intention, as the primary role of the Scottish Parliament is to hold the Scottish Government to account. That amendment is therefore for the avoidance of doubt. 1006 and 10013 are consequential to 1001. 1007 is a minor technical amendment to avoid repetition. It provides that, when the Scotland Act 1998 is subsequently referred to in the subsection, it is referred to as that act. Turning to the other amendments in the group, I recognise the concerns that the committee has raised over complex legal language. I can only assume that Cameron Buchanan intends those amendments to simplify the language of the bill. However, we have used the term have regard to, because it is a term that is generally used when referring to external documents. It is well understood by the bodies that it applies to and the courts, and there is substantial case law setting out how it is to be interpreted. It does not require a person to follow guidance to the letter or to match their activities exactly to the national outcomes or guidance, but it requires them to be aware of that material and to have reasons for any departure from it. Therefore, I invite Cameron Buchanan not to move his amendments and ask the committee to support amendments 1001, 6007 and 10013. I move amendment 1001. Thank you. I call Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 1006A and other amendments in the group. Mr Buchanan, please. Thank you very much, convener. My reason for this was because I wanted to make it a bit weaker. Having regard to it was too strong, and I think that considering it was therefore going to be a weaker or a less draconian consideration, that is why I would like to press those amendments. Thank you. Stuart Stevenson, please. Thank you, convener. I just wanted to perhaps invite the minister to, in his concluding remarks, just to expand on in 1001 at 1C where he excludes things where the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish corporate body are contributing to an outcome. I wonder if that is more restrictive than the minister really intended, because I can envisage circumstances where it is perfectly proper, with the responsibility line with the minister, but a contribution being made by the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I would just be interested to hear the minister's views on that and perhaps, whether in the light of my raising this, he might want to think about this if it is appropriate at stage 3. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? No. Minister, would you please wind up? Thank you. I think that we simply have a difference here of opinion as to how much consideration should be given to those national outcomes. I am quite clear that we should be quite strong on them, but allow all organisations, public bodies to depart where they have good reason. I think that having regard to, as I said, is quite clearly precedented on that while striking the correct balance. With regard to the issue raised by Stuart Stevenson, there have been discussions over concerns raised by the chief executive that has been dealt with through negotiation and drafting in those ways to try and cover all of the concerns raised by the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that that will lead to unintended consequences. I will re-examine that to check, but I would be confident that that is capturing the separation of Parliament and Government that we are trying to make sure has no doubt in the bill. The question is whether amendment 1001 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We are all agreed. We now move on to group 3, which is national outcomes, inequalities resulting from socio-economic disadvantage. I call amendment 1002 in the name of the minister and a group in its own. Minister, could you move and speak to your amendment? We are committed to building a fairer Scotland and reducing inequalities and so wish to make that more explicit aim throughout the bill. The amendment in particular requires that, when determining the national outcomes, Scottish ministers must have regard to the reduction of inequalities of outcomes that result from socio-economic disadvantage. I am hopeful that the committee will support that requirement. Does any other member wish to speak? Minister, I take it that you don't wish to wind up. In which case can I ask if amendment 1002 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I call amendment 1044 in the name of Alec Rowley, which is already debated with amendment 1043. I remind members that, if amendment 1044 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 1003. Alec Rowley can ask you to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1044 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case we are not agreed and there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those against the amendment, please show. Thank you. Total votes cast, 2 for the amendment, 5 against. The question is disagreed to. I now move on to amendment 1003 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1043. Minister, could you move formally, please? Can I ask the question that amendment 1003 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? I call amendment 1004 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1043. Minister, could you move formally? The question is that amendment 1004 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1005 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 10043? The question is that amendment 1005 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1045 in the name of Drew Smith, already debated with amendment 1043? The question is that amendment 1045 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those against the amendment, please raise their hands now. Any abstentions? The result is voting for the amendment 3 and against 4. The question is disagreed to. Can I call amendment 1006 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1001? Can I remind members that, if amendment 1006 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 10046, 10047 or 10048? Minister, can I ask you to move formally? Moved. Can I call amendment 1006A in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 1001? The question is that amendment 1006A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those against the amendment, please show now. Those for the amendment 3, those against 4, the question is disagreed to. The question is that amendment 1006A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed in that one. I call amendment 1007 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1001. Minister, could you move formally, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 1007A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Mr Stevenson. I'm just wondering what... Oh, it's all right. It's the pre-emption. Okay. Is that your questioning, maybe? Yes. No, I'm just seeking to be of assistance. Yeah, okay. Mr Stevenson, I think we're all right here. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I now call amendment 1049 in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 1043. Alec Rowley, to move or not move. Now move, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1049 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That we're not agreed and there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. And those against the amendment, please show. Those in favour of the amendment 4, those against 3, the question is agreed to. Can I call amendments 1008, 1009, 10010 and 10011, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Minister, can I invite you to move amendments 1008 to 10011 on block, please? Can I just have a moment to confer on the implications of the last amendment? Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 1008 to 10011? Okay. If no member objects, the question is that amendments 1008 to 10011 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 1012 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1043? Can I remind members that if amendment 1012 is agreed to, then I cannot call amendment 1050. Minister, can I ask you to move formally? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1012 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1013 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1001? The question is that amendment 1013 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1014 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1043? Minister, can I ask you to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 1014 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1051 in the name of Alec Riley, already debated with amendment 1043? Mr Riley, to move or not move? I am pleased to move, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1051 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. And those voting against the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those for the amendment 4, those against 3, the question is agreed to. I call amendment 1052 in the name of Alec Riley, already debated with amendment 1043. Mr Riley, to move or not move? I move, convener. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 1052 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case we move to a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. And those against the amendment, please show now. Those for the amendment 4, those against the amendment 3, the question is agreed to. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Thank you. Can I call amendment 1053 in the name of Alec Riley, already debated with amendment 1043? Mr Riley, to move or not move? To move, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1053 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. We are not agreed, and there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. Thank you. And those against the amendment, please show now. Thank you. Those in favour of the amendment 4, those against 3, the question is agreed to. We now move on to group 4, duty to carry out community planning in general. Can I call amendment 1015 in the name of the minister, grouped with other amendments, as shown in the grouping? Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 1015 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Excuse me, can I just point out that officials will be moving at this point because we are moving from one part to the other and I don't intend any disruption or disrespect? That's fine, minister. This is group 4, a group of amendments that mainly adjust the wording of the bill to bring it closer to our policy intentions and to provide consistency in the language of different sections. The essence of community planning under the bill is that public sector bodies should work together and with local communities to improve outcomes for local communities. The bill should place duties on community planning partnerships and on community planning partners, but not on community bodies themselves. Section 4-1 of the bill, as introduced, places a duty on community planning partners and community bodies to participate with each other in community planning, which is defined in section 4-2. Amendments 1015 to 1018 adjust the wording to avoid placing duties on community bodies. Amendment 1015 replaces section 4-1 with a provision that imposes a duty on community planning partners to carry out community planning for a purpose mentioned in section 4-2. Amendment 1016 amend section 4-2 to provide that the purpose of community planning is improvement in the achievement of outcomes resulting from or contributed to by the provision of services delivered by or on behalf of the community planning partners. Amendment 1017 is consequential to 1015 and 1016. 1018 places a duty on community planning partners when carrying out community planning to participate with each other and to participate with community bodies who wish to participate in community planning in a way that enables those bodies to participate to the extent that they wish to do so. Unlike section 4 of the bill, as introduced, it imposes no duty on community bodies to participate in community planning. 1019 and 1020 make minor drafting changes to the definitions of community planning partnership and community planning partner in section 4 of the bill. They have no substantive effect. 1026, under the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014, Historic Environment Scotland is established and has the general function of investigating, caring for and promoting Scotland's historic environment. Historic Environment Scotland will become fully operational on 1 October 2015. Historic Environment Scotland will be a valuable community planning partner indeed. The 2014 act places a specific duty on Historic Environment Scotland in exercising its functions to, quote, have regard as may be appropriate in the circumstances to the interests of local communities, unquote. Having the role of a community planning partner will be one important way in which this duty can be delivered. We consider that it is therefore appropriate to include Historic Environment Scotland in the list of community planning partners in schedule 1. Amendment 1027 replaces section 52A with a reworded provision. It is a minor amendment and has no substantive effect. 1028 is consequential to 1027. Section 51 of the bill provides that each community planning partnership must prepare and publish a local outcomes improvement plan. Section 52A provides that this plan must set out each local outcome to which the community planning partnership is to give priority, with a view to improving the achievement of the outcome. Amendment 1032 is another that seeks to simplify the language in the bill by adding consistency so that we refer to person in both subsections of section 8, which imposes governance duties in relation to the facilitation of community planning and the carrying out of community planning functions by community planning partnerships. Section 81 refers to each community planning partner, while section 82 identifies the person referred to as community planning partners in section 81. Amendment 1037 is consequential to amendments 1015 and 1016 to reflect the fact that community planning is now defined in subsection 1 rather than subsection 2 of section 4. Amendment 1038 relates to section 46 of the bill, which gives the Scottish ministers powers to make regulations modifying the list of persons in schedule 1 who are community planning partners, to add a person or description of person or remove or amend an entry. It also relates to section 83, which gives the Scottish ministers powers to make regulations, to add a person or description of person to the list of community planning partners with governance duties or to remove or amend an entry in the list. The bill currently proposes that the exercise of those powers is subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. In my response dated 19 December to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee report, I indicated my agreement with their recommendation regarding changing that parliamentary procedure to the affirmative procedure. That amendment therefore provides regulations that modify the list of community planning partners or the list of governance partners are subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore to a higher level of scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament. Amendments 1039, 1040 and 1041 add to the list of consequential amendments to other legislation arising from the bill in schedule 4. If it helps the committee, I can briefly summarise what it does. 1039 ensures that references to community planning duties in the local government Scotland Act 1973 relate to duties under this bill, not the 2003 act. Section 99 of the 1973 act places a set of general duties on local government auditors. One of those is for auditors to satisfy themselves that the local authority is complying with its community planning duties. Section 1021C of that act provides for the controller of audit to make reports to the Accounts Commission on how a local authority has discharged its community planning duties. It is important to bring that up to date. Amendment 1040 alters section 572A of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. That provision allows ministers to, by order, amend, repeal, revoke or diso-ply any enactment in certain situations. One of those situations is where ministers consider that the enactment prevents local authorities from discharging their community planning functions under section 151 of the 2003 act. Since the bill repeals part 2 of the 2003 act, this amendment removes the redundant reference. 1041 updates references to community planning in the Fire Scotland Act 2005 and the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012. In both acts, those references to community planning apply to two issues. The first is relation to local plans, where section 41E of the 2005 act requires the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to produce a local fire and rescue plan for each local authority area. Similarly, the 2012 act requires the relevant local police commander to produce a local police plan for each local authority area. In both of those cases, those plans must, among other things, set out how fire and rescue or policing priorities and objectives will contribute to the delivery of any relevant local outcomes identified by community planning. 1041 updates statutory references to community planning for those purposes. The other issue arises in relation to delegation of functions. The 2005 act requires the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to delegate certain functions, including community planning functions, to a local senior officer. Likewise, the 2012 act requires the chief constable of Police Scotland to delegate his or her community planning functions to the local commander for that area. 1041 also updates statutory references to community planning for those purposes. 1042 repeals section 572B of the local government in Scotland act 2003. That section currently allows ministers to, by order, amend, repeal, revoke or diso-apply any amendment in situations where ministers consider the enactment prevents community planning partners from discharging their community planning functions under sections 15 and 16 of the 2003 act. However, the community planning provisions in this bill will replace those in the 2003 act. Schedule 5 repeals part 2 of the 2003 act and, as a result, section 572B of that act becomes redundant. We consider that there is no need to replicate this provision for community planning duties in this bill. Section 97 provides ministers with the means to cover this situation through a general power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision, by order. Having gone through all that, I ask the committee to agree to those amendments and I move amendment 1015. Does anyone wish to enter the debate at this point? Minister, I take it that you do not want to wind up. The question is then that amendment 1015 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 1016, 1017 and 1018, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 1016 to 1018 on block? Can I ask if any member objects to a single question being put on these amendments? In which case, can I ask that amendments 1016 to 1018 are agreed? Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I call amendment 1054 in group 5, which is relationships between national outcomes and local outcomes. 1054 is in the name of Drew Smith in a group in its own. Mr Smith, can I ask you to move and speak to your amendment? The previous group has returned us to section 4.3, community planning of the bill, where, as drafted, the requirement is that local outcomes must be consistent with national outcomes, and the purpose and effect of my amendment is to change that to be the community planning partnerships in setting the outcomes must have regard to national outcomes as opposed to being consistent with national outcomes. We had an earlier debate convener around the consistent use of language in a debate as to whether or not the view that Mr McAllan put forward was that having regard to it was a stronger position than to consider. I would contend that being consistent with would be stronger still and could run the risk of creating a situation where national outcomes and local outcomes may be in conflict. Perhaps as a result of participation, request a local outcome might be set, but if the bill as drafted was passed, there could be a danger that the national outcome might seem to overwrite the local outcome. I believe that there certainly is a case that local authority should have regard to the national outcomes, but it would be too far to expect all the local outcomes to be completely consistent with national outcomes. In introducing into the replacement subsection here 3, the term community planning partnership, I am just left feeling slightly uneasy that by specifying that and that alone, the scope that is covered by the amendment is more limited than the scope of what is being deleted, which makes no such specific reference to the community planning partnership. I am unclear genuinely as to that and I just invite the member to perhaps help me to understand if my fears are correct or whether that is a matter that he considered or in particular why he chose to introduce the very specific community planning partnership in his amendment, which did not occur in the words that he has deleted at line 16. Okay, does anyone else wish to enter the debate? Thank you, convener. Amendment 1054 imposes a duty on community planning partnerships in setting outcomes to have regard to, rather than as proposed in section 4, that the local outcomes to the achievement is to be improved by community planning have to be consistent with. Those are two changes, as the member pointed out. Amendment 1054 also assumes a duty on community planning partnerships to set outcomes. A statutory provision requiring a CPP to have regard to national outcomes will not ensure that local outcomes reflect the national outcomes in the way that a duty to be consistent will. A duty to have regard to requires that it be considered, not that it be followed. A local outcome could have a recognisable impact in a variety of ways. On many national outcomes, local objectives to improve mental health might impact on what we currently have as national outcomes. On six and seven, we live in longer, healthier lives and we have tackled the significant inequalities of Scottish society. If the national outcomes are created by a participative process and we have set that out already, they will be all-encompassing but also able to be aligned very effectively for local priorities as well. The terminology that we are consistent with is that we feel that we need that stronger link to link up local plans, national plans, national outcomes and local outcomes. That enables us to ensure that local outcomes, which are objectives for local areas and the national outcomes, are aligned. There is also, as we said, no duty on CPPs to set outcomes only to identify those that are to be prioritised under section 5-2. The requirement for local outcomes to be consistent with national outcomes arises from the description of community planning in section 4-2, combined with section 4-3. That could therefore create difficulties and confusion on the purpose of CPPs in that regard. I would ask Drew Smith to withdraw the amendment. Can I call on Mr Smith to wind up and to press or withdraw? Thank you, convener. I listened carefully to Mr Stewart's comments and, indeed, to Lord Mr Stewart and to the minister, Mr Stewart. I think that I will press the amendment. I understand the concern that has been raised, but I would press the amendment because in the way that it is drafted, it is restricting the issue to community planning partnerships. I believe that community planning partnerships have their own processes here where it would be legitimate for them to set their own local objectives, which, certainly, should have regard to national outcomes. I do not believe that they would require them to be completely consistent at all times. To require that, it would be against the spin-out of the bill, and I would therefore press. The question is that amendment 1054 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. We will move to the vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those against the amendment, please show now. Those for the amendment 3, those against the amendment 4, the question is disagreed to. Can I call amendment 1019, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1015? The question is that amendment 1019 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1020, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1015? The question is that amendment 1020 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Group 6 is the effectiveness of community planning involving communities, tackling inequality, et cetera. Can I call amendment 1021, in the name of the minister, grouped with other amendments that are shown in the groupings. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 1021 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Amendment 1021 itself is a minor drafting amendment, which has no substantive effect. It provides the duties for CPPs in section 4, 5 apply to each community planning partnership instead of a community planning partnership. Amendments 1023 and 1024 are likewise minor drafting amendments, which have no substantive effect, replacing such with those. Amendment 1030 is also a minor technical amendment, which provides spacing. Having disposed of those, I would turn to the substantive amendments in the group. Amendment 1022 relates to the focus on addressing inequalities, which was a feature of written submissions. It was a recurrent subject of debate at stage 1 during committee's evidence sessions. We know that some communities are better placed to have their views considered and acted upon than others. The committee's stage 1 report referred to the risk of empowering only the already empowered. Many, including Barnardo Scotland, Oxfam Poverty Alliance, emphasised in their contributions that community planning partnerships need to ensure that they take account of those experiencing the disadvantages associated with socioeconomic inequalities. Community planning partnerships are already addressing inequalities in their work, but we want them to do more. That is why the amendment would make it explicit that community planning partnerships, when considering which community bodies are likely to contribute to community planning, must have regard in particular to those bodies that represent the interests of persons experiencing inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage. That triggers the requirement to make all reasonable efforts to secure their participation. Amendment 1025 relates to the committee's recommendation that there should be a specific duty on CPP partners to reduce inequality and focus on prevention. The Scottish Government and our partners on the national community planning group agree that taking action to reduce inequalities should be at the heart of what community planning partnerships do. In fact, as we have shown from the outcomes, we believe that it should be at the heart of what the whole of the Government should be doing. That amendment introduces a general duty on community planning partnerships to act with a view to reducing inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage. The duty would apply to how a community planning partnership undertakes all its functions under part 2 of the bill, from securing participation by community bodies to the local outcomes that they prioritise in their local outcomes improvement plan. It also includes how community planning partnerships review progress and the continued suitability of their plan and how they report on progress each year to local communities. The amendment includes a qualification that allows a community planning partnership not to act with a view to reducing inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage, where it considers it inappropriate to do so. That qualification recognises that although a community planning partnership might undertake its general duties with a view to reducing inequalities, it might have certain important actions that do not contribute to that in isolation. For instance, a community planning partnership should be able to support the development of high-skilled, high-earning employment opportunities, even though that might not in the first step contribute to a reduction in inequalities. Alex Rowley's amendment 1055 would require local authorities to maintain a list of community bodies that might participate in community planning. Although I have been interested in the proposal, community planning partnerships already have access to a Scotland-wide directory of third sector organisations via the Get Involved website. They are able to access a database that provides identification of local community bodies by postal code and activity. That information is maintained by the local third sector interface, which, among other things, is funded to build in the third sector to community planning in their local area. The database includes details of community body location, website, main contact, charitable and legal status, number of paid staff, committee members, geographical reach, aims and objectives—main areas of work and financial data. It is therefore quite extensive in its fields. It is not clear therefore what additional benefit there would be in requiring each local authority to maintain a list of community bodies in their area, nor what potentially implications there could be for a body that, for whatever reason, did not end up on the list. We do not intend to require any form of registration for community bodies to be allowed to participate in community planning. Amendment 1056 would require community planning partnerships to produce an assessment of the wellbeing of communities in its area. Amendment 1059 would place a duty on them to take account of the most recently published assessment of the wellbeing of communities in its area before publishing its local outcomes improvement plan. The bill has introduced already requires community planning partnerships to understand the needs and circumstances of persons residing in their area. Section 5 4 of the bill requires community planning partnerships to take account of those needs and circumstances, as well as any representations received from their consultation with community bodies and others before publishing their local outcomes improvement plan. Another issue with that is that there is no requirement to update the provisions here. Amendment 1059 refers to the most recently published assessment, but there is no duty to provide or regularly publish such assessments. A Welsh provision in a parallel bill requires that there should be such provisions like that. Furthermore, wellbeing has been left purposefully undefined in local government legislation, in particular the 2003 act and its general power for local authorities to advance wellbeing. The introduction of a definition to the term in this act could potentially cause confusion, so I do not believe that there is any need for these amendments and all they would do would be impose a new burden on community planning partnerships. Amendment 1058 would specifically require a CPP to make all reasonable efforts to secure representations from persons identified in the assessment of wellbeing as being considered to be particularly vulnerable or otherwise disadvantaged. However, our amendment 1022 already goes further than that, as it would require community planning partnerships when considering which community bodies are likely to be able to contribute to community planning to have particular regard to community bodies representing disadvantaged communities. The community planning partnership must, as I said, make all reasonable efforts to secure the participation of those bodies and take reasonable steps to enable community bodies who wish to participate to do so. Furthermore, under amendment 1018, community planning partnerships will also be under a duty to participate with those community bodies who wish to participate. Unlike amendment 1058, our amendment 1022 would apply those duties of participation with community bodies in all aspects of community planning, not just the finalisation of the local outcomes improvement plan but also review of progress against the plan, review of the continued suitability of the plan and progress reporting. They are much broader in their scope. Amendment 1057 seeks to impose a more explicit duty on CPPs to consult on the local outcome improvement plan. The bill secures the participation of community bodies throughout the community planning process. That goes beyond preparing a plan to include the review of progress against the plan, review of continued suitability of the plan and progress reporting on that plan. That focus on on-going participation with community bodies, including third sector bodies, distinguishes community planning from the development of other plans where consultation provides the main formal means of engagement with service users and stakeholders. That is about partnership. In that context, the existing provision does not seek to be overly prescriptive about who the CPP should consult. It is purposefully broad so that a local CPP can determine from its knowledge of local needs, circumstances and resources which community bodies it would be appropriate to consult and which other persons it would be appropriate to consult with. I believe that that broad provision is more effective than the narrow specification of bodies suggested by Alex Rowley. I also note that his amendment would have community planning partnerships consult with their own partners, which seems a little unusual. Amendments 1060, 1061 and 1062 represent an attempt to bring locality planning into the bill as part of community planning. I have considerable sympathy for the intention behind those amendments. I am not sure that there are no other ways to achieve them rather than those amendments, but I believe really strongly in the value of neighbourhood planning. At this level, you get the link between community planning, which can be quite strategic in its view and the clearest example of people's wellbeing in local places. It is also where you can often make the biggest difference in influencing priorities for public services and how they are delivered, and also in contributing directly to proving the general wellbeing of a community. The community action plans, though described in the amendments, would have a slightly more limited purpose. It would link the local outcomes in a community planning partnership's local outcomes improvement plan with each community council area in the community planning area. The plans would set out the extent of any improvement that is expected in that community council area for each of the local outcomes that is set out in the local outcomes improvement plan. I want the purpose of locality planning to be more ambitious, broader and high-achieving. I want community planning partnerships to develop and apply neighbourhood-based approaches wherever they can offer the most value. The amendments have issues with that. To take the example of Fife, which Mr Rowley will know very well, the amendments would require community planning partners to work with community councils and other community bodies to produce no fewer than 105 community action plans. That is the number of active and inactive community councils that are in Fife. That would be quite an immense bureaucracy to prescribe and would detract community planning partners and community bodies from efforts to improve outcomes where improvements were most needed, for example targeting additional work on more disadvantaged areas or taking a more flexible approach in the definition of what a neighbourhood is from that of a community council area. We need to ensure that community planning can concentrate on where it can bring the most benefits. That is improving local outcomes, reducing inequalities on a set of priorities identified from the planning, the partnership and that local understanding. That is a key principle of the CPP provisions in this bill and it reflects the recommendation in the Accounts Commission and Auditor General's recent national audit report, Community Planning, Turning Ambition into Action, that community planning partnerships should set clear improvement priorities focused on how they will add most value as a partnership when updating their single outcome agreement. I wish to return to that in guidance, but I also think that there is potential to work with Mr Rowley to develop that, to present more technically robust and perhaps more flexibly applied amendments that he could present to Parliament at stage 3. Amendment 1029 addresses the committee's request in its stage 1 report for confirmation that the community planning partnership is required to publicly publish reports on progress. That amendment provides that community planning partnerships must publish their progress report for each reporting year. One of the principles for part 2 of the bill, which has attracted universal support, is the importance of community participation at the heart of community planning. 1031 imposes a new duty on community planning partnerships to account for the participation by community bodies in community planning for the area. It requires that a community planning partnership's annual report must report on the extent to which the partners have participated with community bodies during the reporting year and the extent to which that participation has been effective in enabling those community bodies to participate in community planning. I commend those Government amendments to the committee and I would ask Alex Rowley not to move his amendments, although, as I said, I am sympathetic to 1058 in principle. I move 1021. Thank you minister. I call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 1055 and other amendments in the group. Mr Rowley, please. Thank you, convener. I am grateful to the minister because it allows me to address some of the points that he has picked up. I did note that the Audit Scotland 2013 community planning report states that community planning takes account of a wide range of consultation activity, but there is a long way to go before services are truly designed around communities and the potential of local people to participate in, shape and improve local services is realised. That sums up the amendments and where I am trying to go today in those amendments. I am prepared to accept the minister's point that he has committed, particularly in terms of looking at the idea of the local community plans that are within the framework of the high-level plan. He says that the way to do this is through guidance. I would say to him that to put this on the face of the bill at stage 2 gives us the opportunity to then work together as we get to stage 3 in terms of any technical difficulties or other difficulties that he envisages there, but I certainly do not envisage the same difficulties. If I can go through them, in terms of establishing a register at the local level and local authorities to maintain a register, I accept what the minister says that there is a register held by a third sector organisation at a national level, but many of the community organisations and community groups that we are trying to reach, I suspect, are on any register. That is why at the local authority level to hold a register at all local community groups. That can range from community councils, tenants and residents groups to sport and leisure groups. It can range to a whole load of different local groups that have an input in terms of the community planning process when you are trying to look at outcomes. If you take a high-level outcome, for example, in terms of health and wellbeing, the first point that I would make is that a lot of those community planning partnerships that are there tick the boxes year in and year out in terms of the outcomes that they are achieving, but sometimes it is very difficult. I did sit in a community planning partnership for some like seven or eight years and chaired the five community planning partnership for over two years. It is sometimes difficult to see what impact that is actually having in communities, and it is certainly very difficult to see how communities have been engaged or involved at all. Indeed, the majority of those community groups and organisations, if you said to them what is the community plan or how is the community planning partner in your area, are you involved in it? The answer would be no. I am sure that that is the case all over Scotland, but if you take, for example, in terms of health and wellbeing, I would argue that the local bowling club, the local running club, the local football club, the local kids activity club all have an input and should be having an input into setting what the priorities are at the local level. The minister, Mr Bielagi, talks about 105 community action plans in Fife. I certainly am not in any way put off by that. Indeed, I would argue that, if you take Fife as an example that you have given, Fife has seven area committees at a local level, and some of those area committees are better than others at trying to get down to a more local level at the community level. If you take my constituency and come in through the top side, Benarty is the second highest level of deprivation in Fife and a community council area, part of the Locke's ward along with the Kelty ward and my home village, both of them are quite distinct, have distinct issues and would have priorities set locally, I am sure, that, although similar, might be different. If you come to the bottom side of my constituency, I will get to be in Burkid and Aberdour, and I will get to be in Helene community council. Again, they have priorities, but those priorities will be different in terms of the levels of deprivation that exist compared with the top side of the constituency. However, in terms of health and wellbeing, sport, et cetera, why would you not be able to go to that level and have a bottom up approach to being able to set local priorities that local people—that, for me, is in line with exactly what Audit Scotland is talking about? The role of community planning and creating joint work in between public bodies should not be confused with the purpose of involving communities in planning their future and planning public services for their area. The Government, over a number of years, in establishing community planning partners, was to try and get public organisations to work together. You may say, well, how difficult is that? However, as the minister will know, and ministers previously—I am sure that the civil servants will know—that that is often quite difficult. Even within a local authority, the departments in the different parts of the local authority can work in silos. We see it in government in this place. I am just pulling those together. However, taking the next step, as the bill says, community empowerment, as it says on the tin, if you are going to try to achieve that community empowerment, I would argue that by creating those registers so that all local groups can sign up to them and know that if they are signed up to them, they are not going to get missed out, because they are there, they are registered, they are going to be participating, they are going to be involved, but secondly, to allow communities at that level to start to shape what their priorities are and the services that they need, because they will be different in different communities. As many groups have pointed out, in the spirit of the Christi commission, this fundamental change and shift in setting priorities has to take place. If we are serious about prevention, as the Christi commission was, the best way to achieve that is from a local level and a bottom-up approach. That is what those amendments are set out to do. On the wellbeing in local communities, it is important that we see what the issues are in communities. As I say in my constituency, I can take you through community after community, all covered by geographical community council areas. Some have a plethora of local organisations that are working away hard and should be empowered, but some do not and some will need additional support to actually grow those organisations that are there. Producing the information and the wellbeing on communities would be part of that. I am happy to work with the minister and the Government to firm up on any of those proposals. I certainly would not want any of them to be a threat, although I do not believe that they are a threat to community engagement. It is quite the reverse. I think that those amendments would really enhance this bill, but I am willing that, if there are specific issues there, I am willing to work with the minister and the Government on that. However, I think that the way to do that is to put those amendments on the face of the bill and then let us work together if there are difficulties, we will wire them out as we move towards stage 3. I am happy to move, convener. Thank you, Mr Rowley. Stuart Stevenson, please. Thank you very much, convener. I have got a number of substantial difficulties with what is before us in Mr Rowley's amendments. Speaking on 1055, the words that are before me are each local authority must, not can, must, for the purposes, maintain a list of all community bodies with us in its area. In his remarks on his amendments, Mr Rowley said that local groups can sign up. If local groups can sign up, I am unclear how each local authority must maintain a list, because they can only maintain a list if local groups sign up, or they can go on a search and destroy mission to try and find groups, sometimes that did not even realise that they are groups. I illustrate that in particular by the committee's visit that we made to the backies in Aberdeen, where essentially a couple of members of the community decided the grass in their area between the buildings was very untidy and needed to be cut and tidied up and debris removed, so they started to do that. At some point from that initial thought that these couple of individuals had to the position that we are in today, they acquired some funding—I think that it was £500 of what was a small amount—they may have opened a bank account and they started to consider who should be on the group, the group grew, they acquired a formality. At what point did it become a group that each local authority must, for the purposes, maintain a list of? I do not know. I suspect that the group concerned would not know. That is a very, very successful example of grassroots—I had no pun intended—organisation starting with a little idea and developing into something that is delivering a lot. Incidentally, they did not know what regeneration was, even though they were probably the best example that the committee found as it went round the country of regeneration actually happening. I am very unclear on how a local community can, in effect, deliver on the must that is in the drafting in 1055. In Allot Rowley, it specifically mentions sport and leisure, so local golf clubs, skateboarding groups that may be quite informal and fluid in its structure that goes along and you use the local skateboarding part. Is that caught? It is a community body, but it has not got formality, it may have no group, it may have no AGM, it may have no clear office, but it is sowing bees that take place in the Kirkhall. I just do not know where the line is. By requiring that groups have to be on this list, which is the implication of this amendment, we carry with it the risk of genuinely disempowering people who do not feel that they want to get engaged with the kind of formality that this amendment says must maintain a list of all community bodies within its area, so I have serious difficulties with that. 1056 would insert a community planning partnership, must prepare an assessment of the state of wellbeing, fair enough, and then an assessment that it goes on and talks about, including an analysis of the state of wellbeing of any category of persons in the area in which the community planning partnership considers to be vulnerable or otherwise disadvantaged. That is a laudable aim, but it has a very practical difficulty. There are some kinds of disadvantage that are numerically affecting relatively small numbers of individuals or groups, perhaps the number below which we normally suppress statistical data, which is five. There may be a single person with a health condition that creates a serious disadvantage for someone, which in the drafting that there is here, that person's disadvantage would have to be reported and that person could thereby be identified by means of that report. I think that there is a genuine difficulty in the way that that is drafted. Minor point 1057, normally resident, I just made the point that it is perfectly possible in legal terms for people to be resident in more than one place. Those of us who are MSPs here who have accommodation in Edinburgh as well in our constituency are an example of people who are resident in more than one place. 1060, that is in many ways even more substantial. It requires each local authority in relation to each community council area within its area. The point is that the defined community council areas in my constituency have more than 30 of them, but it certainly does not have more than 30 community councils, because in many of the areas, there is no community council and there is no prospect to be community council. At 2A, the community council for the community council area, and then at paragraph 5, it makes clear that the only exclusion of a community council area may be if the council considers that a community council is unnecessary. An area that is defined as being for a community council but has no community council, nonetheless the non-existent community council has to be consulted in the way that this particular amendment is drafted. We would be unwise to draw those amendments into the bill at this stage, however much sympathy we may have for the objectives, the policy objectives that underlie them. I think that the member would be well advised to take full advantage and exploit the minister and his officials' offer to help to develop some of the ideas that Mr Riley has. I do not think that this is the time to bring forward those amendments, which, at least in my reading of it, appear to offer some quite substantial difficulties in certain respects. Thank you very much. I have considerable sympathy with that, because I find that the definition of wellbeing is too defined in 1056. I am mindful of what the minister says about putting an administrative burden on this sort of thing. It is going to be quite a burden that we are going to have for this. I am quite reluctant to support this, because I feel that it is going to produce quite a burden. Also, I was not very keen on 1025, because it is putting emphasis particularly on the inequality of disadvantaged communities. I am all for that, but I think that it is just putting too much emphasis on it. My other point was, yes, on 1057, it is the residency that Mr Stevenson said. Normally, residents in the area are very difficult to define. I am very pleased to hear that the minister will consult with us again before putting it in stage 3. I am reluctant to support it. John Wilson, please. Thank you, convener. I would like to make comment on 1055. In relation to local authorities maintaining lists of groups in their area, I would seek from the minister. The minister made great play of a national register that is kept by third sector organisations. I know that third sector organisations continually complain about not having enough funding. That work and that register can only be maintained if those third sector organisations at a local area have the resources to carry out the work to maintain a register. Taking on, Stuart Stevenson's point about some of the groups that are not covered in that third sector register could be, and Mr Stevenson made reference to, a sowing be. Although they are not on that national register, at a local level they may be providing a valuable service for people who are elderly and others who take advantage of that social interaction and the activity that is generated from participating in the sowing be. I am minded in my own village where there is a local group of pensioners that come together once a week to play bingo. There are only a dozen of them that come together. They may not actually be registered, but they, as far as I am concerned, may play a vital part in delivering elderly care services because of the communication, the interaction that takes place with those groups. It is meaningful for them, but it may not actually be flagged up in a national register, but it is calling on local authorities to maintain that type of community register, not a register of third sector organisations or voluntary organisations that may get national funding or local funding that can easily be identified by third sector interfaces to ensure that they are on that register. In relation to the other issues in terms of the community councils scheme, Mr Stevenson once again is right, and this is where I need to seek guidance from the minister. Of community council schemes, I understand that every local authority has a community council scheme in operation. They know the boundaries, and they set the boundaries for those community councils. Unfortunately, some of the community council boundaries do not mirror what are seen as the natural boundaries of communities and the issues that have been raised by the examples given by Mr Rowley and Mr Stevenson in terms of how communities view themselves and what areas they represent. However, in relation to trying to give that credence to that community council boundary, it is something that is already set out by local authorities, but we may have to look at that to find out whether or not community councils naturally cover and compass community organisations in areas where the community council is much larger than the areas where real deprivation exists. We do not target resources through the community planning partnerships to the areas of multiple deprivation. That is a work in progress. I welcome the minister's acceptance for stage 3 that could work together with Alex Rowley to ensure that we get something in legislation that encompasses what we are trying to achieve here. The bottom line for everybody around this table and in the Parliament is to achieve the goal of ensuring that the policies, the practice and the delivery of community planning partnerships are best suited to those local communities that need the most help. Unfortunately, I have no community planning partnerships that have been around for more than 30 years. I know that, in many cases, we are still struggling to get the resources that are necessary to the communities that are most in need of those resources. We need to hopefully get a piece of legislation in place that can achieve best outcomes for those communities and the nation as a whole. I recognise that this is the first stage 2 that many members have undertaken. I should say that you are able to intervene in other members during the course of their speeches at this stage 2. It would not be the norm for me to take back members who have already spoken. Under the circumstances, I will allow Cameron Buchanan to come back very briefly and the same for Mr Rowley. My point was that, on 1055, each CCP must maintain the list of all community bodies in this area. The word must rather than should, because it is quite a burden to have it. The point that Mr Wilson has made about the Bowling Club and the Bingo thing is too restrictive. I am grateful for allowing me to come back. Just to clarify that, the local authority must maintain the register. That does not mean that the local zone group or the local skateboard group must sign up to the register. The point is that every local authority maintains that register and people sign up to the register, organisations groups sign up to the register so that they are registered and they will then be guaranteed to be involved in the consultations that take place. If Mr Stevenson is right, that suggests that local groups would be forced to sign up. I do not think that it does, but that would be a technicality of the draft for me. I am really just trying to make the point that groups might feel that they should be when groups are very often free spirits who really want to have nothing whatsoever to do with the formal structures of government at any level. I just wonder if the member thinks also that the phrasing that he has adopted appears to suggest that local authorities must list all the groups regardless of whether the groups wish to be listed or not, because that is the worst that is being put in the bill if the amendment is passed. I am saying that if you establish a principle, if there is a technical issue with the draft, then that can be picked up at stage 3. The principle is that local authorities hold the register. What it means is that I would hope that local groups would be encouraged to register because more and more local groups would want to be involved in setting the local priorities through the local plans. That is the crucial bit. For the next phases, the local groups are much more involved in setting the local plans. Likewise, we come in Buchanan's comment about the administrative burden that would be placed on local authorities. I would stress that all that information is available within every local authority across Scotland. The question is whether you make that information available for each local area and you do it in such a way that it is transparent that will influence the discussion and engage more people at a community level to be able to set out their priorities. In terms of administrative burden, I do not think that it is a burden. It is already there. Indeed, you really would argue that if community planning partners were going about their business and setting their priorities for local communities in the correct way, they would be taking account of that information and doing so. What that does is that it informs and empowers communities with the same level of information so that you can then start to make the case at a local level for what the priorities are for your community. That would be the point that I would like to see at. I am sorry, convener. I was trying to intervene in Mr Rowley. My apologies for this, but maybe the minister can help us out with this. I know what the amendment says in terms of 155. I have heard what Mr Rowley said about community organisations. If they so wished, they could refuse to be on that register of local authorities. I am slightly confused because what I would like local authorities to be aware of, as I mentioned earlier in the bingo group, the sewing bee, is that I would like local authorities to be aware of those community organisations' existence so that they could then consult with them. I am rather concerned that the issue about community organisations being able to deregister themselves in some respect from the council's list. What I am trying to get to is a point where we, talking about the Parliament, the Government, local authorities and communities, fully understand what organisations exist in an area and what services they are delivering in that area. It may not be statutory services, but what I am frightened of is the duplication that may take place when a health board or a local authority decide that we are going to provide social care services for the elderly, which are already being delivered at a local level by a local community group. I agree with 055, but I am rather concerned now with Mr Rowley's insistence that groups could deregister themselves and not be on that list. I have a fear there that we could end up failing to understand what is happening at a local level and being delivered by communities at a local level if they are not on that list. I have been patiently waiting rather than intervening because I knew that I had this chance. I would go through the four issues that have been broadly the subject of debate. The one that was being the subject of least was Cameron Buchanan's challenging of amendment 1025, but that does come from the committee's recommendation that there should be a specific duty on CPP partners to reduce inequality and focus on prevention. I know that he has been skewered on what he has signed up to in the committee in the past, only to oppose later date. I simply want to move on by saying that I believe that the committee would recognise the value of that and endorse it. On the other issues—the amendments from Mr Rowley—on the register in 1055, there are technical issues here, but there is also an issue of principle. The technical issues, you have to look at this amendment and say that each local authority must maintain a list of all community bodies in its area. That, as well as placing a burden on local authorities, to me suggests that it would not be possible to deregister if you fitted the definition of a community body. You would have to be on that, and the local authority would be under a duty to require you to register or to try and make you register. I also think that in practice there would be a danger if it was in statute like that, that that becomes an authoritative list and that anybody who, for whatever reason, was not on it could be excluded by people who said, well, you have not participated in the list process. It is also important to remember that we had amendments earlier that removed inadvertent duties that the bill had placed on community bodies because the purpose here is to place duties on the statutory bodies, local authorities and so on, rather than the voluntary sector and the informal voluntary sector that makes up so much of what happens at the grass-roots level in which we have been referring to as sowing bees and so on. However, the principal difficulty here is that it is a duplication of something that already happens. The term national register has been used, but what we actually have is a network of local registers that covers the entire nation. Those are done through the third sector interfaces and there is funding from the Scottish Government to do this. The total number of organisations on these collectively is 35,000, but we know that 12,500 of those are not registered charities. I have not looked at that in great detail, but that strikes me as being the mother and toddler groups, the small informal groups. Minister, you have just said that there are 35,000 registered organisations on this national register. I can seek clarification. My understanding is—I will sit corrected if I am wrong with that figure—that my understanding is that SCVO has a membership of 55,000. If SCVO has a membership of 55,000 and you are saying that there are 35,000 on this register, then where is the other 20,000? On top of that, I know that the register omits certain very active community organisations. On your 35,000, how do we gather the information on all those other community organisations that are working away day in, day out, delivering services in local communities that are not on that national register? I cannot speak for the membership of SCVO. We will look at that, but the real question here is that if there are organisations out there and there are 12,500 groups on this list that are not formally registered charities, there must be the informal sector, is it going to be larger if it is being—it is going to be more comprehensive if it is being run by local authorities rather than the third sector interface. I am not convinced that that is the case. I am also wondering what the approach is, what the justification is for moving that from the third sector itself. In Edinburgh, the local third sector interface is the Edinburgh voluntary sector council, the social enterprise network. Those groups that are grass roots bottom up, that are supposed to be there and constituted for the whole range of organisations to the local authority. I am also not clear as to the justification for moving what is essentially being done by the third sector itself to the local authority rather than the CPP, for example. The CPP could, in statute, be given this rather than local authorities, and that would create a list that would flow through to all the partners. However, the principle is to try and establish a much more localised list that encourages local organisations to get involved in the process of community planning, particularly in terms of setting priorities and outcomes at a very local level. Does the minister accept that that is what is not happening under the current community planning regime that is in place? The third sector interfaces exist to be the interface between the community planning partnership and the third sector in their area and reaching all the way down to your informal pensioners lunches and so on. I agree with the principle, the objective, that we want all of these organisations to be able to participate in community planning. I went along to a pensioners lunch and I found out new things about parking in the local area that I then took up with the council. That sort of grassroots ordinary people day in, day out, ordinary lives being consulted and finding out and therefore informing action is the kind of thing that we want to encourage. However, if there is an issue with the TSI's in reaching all those people, is the solution moving it to local authority control and creating a duty there? I do not see that that is the answer to the question that is being asked here. I would also expect that, in the event of duplication with TSI's being funded to deliver such a network of local databases that are for the local authority area and councils gaining a statutory responsibility to the funding that we give to third sector interfaces would come under pressure from local authorities who would say, well, it is more appropriate given that we now have the statutory responsibility that you fund us. I think that those are big questions that we, while we may have sympathy with the principle of involving the third sector, putting this into the bill even for subsequent amendment is something that I would resist very strongly. Mr Stevenson, would the minister also recognise that, of course, community groups are quite indifferent to council boundaries and will straddle them, possibly two or three? That is another good point and another issue as to why putting the responsibility on local authorities would not, in principle, be appropriate. To move on to the next of the other two points of contention, the issue of wellbeing and the wellbeing assessment, the bill already requires that the community planning partnership must take account of, quote, the needs and circumstances of persons residing in the area of the local authority to which the plan relates. That is 5 for B. That would require them to assess to be aware. That is pretty implicit, but more importantly, that applies to all the functions and all the details, all the things that a CPP would do, rather than simply being narrow. I would also point out that the representations that have to be secured from community bodies will also assist in that assessment. That is essentially an assessment if community bodies must be supported to make representations and you have to understand the needs and circumstances. That is there, but it is much broader and it covers all the functions. I remain of the view that it is potentially difficult to introduce as definition of wellbeing in this act when we have not introduced it in others. Lastly, on the issue of localities, whenever I have gone around Scotland visiting local authorities, I have been really impressed by what happens when you replicate a CPP at a lower level. When you take all the statutory bodies, all the voluntary groups to the council and have them meet and plan at a more localised level, but everybody does it slightly differently. Everybody has slightly different people around the table, slightly different lines of accountability, slightly different amounts of money being dealt with at that level. Even in Dundee, there are eight local ward-level decision-making bodies. Six of them have a budget of £125,000. Two of them don't, and that is because those are community regeneration forums in areas that need regeneration and a bit of extra effort. I worry that the detail of that is quite prescriptive in focusing on community council boundaries rather than others, and that, if it is spread out, requiring all those community council boundaries to have a local plan rather than creating a flexibility whereby you may have a ward-level plan and then some additional top-up actions at local level, you would potentially empower the already empowered, which has been an issue that has been put out by the committee. However, as I said, I will only speak warmly about locality planning, and I think that it should be taken forward and I will take an intervention. I am very pleased that the principle of the issue seems to be supportive often. Would you accept that what I am not trying to do here is to create a large bureaucracy of Government officials at the local level or health officials or sitting on tables in every locality trying to come up with what their view is? That is the problem, and that has been the problem of Government and community planning. As the professionals are telling the communities what is good for them, I am trying to change the opposite of that exactly to what it says on the TIN, community empowerment and community planning, so that communities set their priorities and they set the agenda that the public bodies and others then have to work to, and they hold to account those public bodies to deliver on the outcomes that have been set locally and the priorities that have been set locally. We have to reverse the professionalism within the public services where they tell communities what is good for them, and that is the principle that I am trying to establish here, but I welcome the fact that the minister supports the principle and I am sure that we can work together on that. I do not think that there is a single word that Mr Rowley just said that I disagreed with. That agreement on principle is a good foundation to go forward on this area. Thank you very much. That was a long section over those amendments, but I think that that was very worthwhile. The question is that amendment 1021 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 1022, 1023 and 1024, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Minister, could you move those amendments 1022 to 1024 on block? Moved on block. Do any members have objections to a single question being put in those amendments? We are not dealing with 1025, we are dealing with 1022 to 1024. Are there any objections to those being moved on block? No. The question is then that amendments 1022 to 1024 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 1055, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 1021? Mr Rowley, to move or not move? Convener, in light of the discussion and the commitment for the minister, I do not intend to move any of the amendments in this section, I intend to work with the minister to try and take them forward for stage 3. Okay, I will do them one by one. So not move. Are the committee content with that? Thank you. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1026, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1015? Minister, would you like to move formally, please? The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1025, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1021? Could you formally move, please? The question is that amendment 1025 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not all agreed. Therefore, there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those against the amendment, please show. I have to get the official sheet, folks. Those in favour of the amendment 6, those against 1, the question is agreed to. Can I call amendment 1056, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 1021? Is Mr Rowley to move or not move? Are the committee content that that is not moved? The question is that amendment 1056 be agreed to. Sorry, it is not moved. I beg your pardon. We are at that stage, folks. Can I call amendment 1027, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1015? Minister, to move formally, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1027 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not all agreed. Thank you. Call amendment 1028, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1015. Minister, would you like to move formally, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 1028 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Very agreed. Thank you. Can I call amendment 1057, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 1021? Minister, to move or not move? Not move, convener. Thank you. Are the committee content with that? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1058, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 1021? Are the committee content with that? Can I call amendment 1059, in the name of Alec Rowley, already debated with amendment 1021? Minister, to move or not move? Not move. Are the committee content with those? Thank you. That question is that section 5 will be agreed to or will all agree? Thank you. Is amendment 1060—on the name of Alec Rowley—已 debated with amendment 1021? Mr Rowley, to move or not to move gimmiling? Are the committee content? Thank you. Arbeledigw ai wrth gwrs plaerau bonesidiaeth y Gymraeg am Freiddi, y mae'r gwn i gwell i'r engagementridd wath ti. Fe oedd am gallu ei ffordd am dda chi, ac mae'r bushel, Mae'i gwell i efo'r camariartr i brifand o ein man followers, i ar 저희가 ddechreu anys yn y canperio honno i darmiadau amendment 1029 to 1031 on block? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 1029 to 1031? In which case, the question is that amendments 1029 to 1031 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 1062 in the name of Alec Riley, already debated with amendment 1031 Alec Riley, to move or not move? Do not move. Are the committee content with that? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1032 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1015. Minister, formally moved please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1032 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I think at that point, folks, it might be wise to have a wee comfort break. Can we break for a few minutes? Thank you. I suspend. Okay. Thank you. We now move on to group 7, extent of duty on community planning partners to contribute resources. Can I call amendment 1063 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1063? In the name of Cameron Buchanan, in a group in its own, Cameron Buchanan to move and speak to the amendment to please. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to leave out the word of securing and select inviting because I think it is less restrictive and less prescriptive. Thank you, minister. Oh, sorry. Could you move it please, Mr Buchanan? Sorry. Thank you very much. I will therefore move my amendment. Okay. That is a relatively sketchy endorsement of the reasons behind it, but the reasons behind what we have at the moment are that we are keen to ensure that community bodies, which the CPP considers are likely to be able to contribute to community planning, are supported to participate to the extent that they wish to. The section in question refers back to an earlier section, which is very clear that community planning partnership must consider which community bodies are likely to be able to contribute, make all reasonable efforts to secure the participation of such community bodies. However, no secure was not amended in the earlier instance and to the extent that such community bodies wish to participate in community planning take such steps as are reasonable to enable the community bodies to participate in community planning. That is the spirit of the section so that each community planning partner has to contribute funds, staff and other resources that the CPP considers appropriate to assist to secure the participation of those bodies that wish to participate in community planning, a duty to simply invite. We will not ensure that a community body that is invited to participate will be supported to do so, and that is why we think that it is important to have a duty to contribute resources to secure participation. I would ask Cameron Buchanan to withdraw the amendment. Thank you minister. Cameron Buchanan to wind up and presser withdraw please. Can you review what the minister says that I will withdraw the amendment? Are the committee content with that? Yes. Thank you very much. The question is now that section 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. If we can move on to section 10, group 8, community planning status of guidance, can I call amendment 1033 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 1064, 1065, 1034, 1066 and 1067. Can I point out that amendments 1033 and 1064 are direct alternatives and that amendments 1034 and 1066 are also direct alternatives? Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 1033 and speak to all amendments in the group please? Thanks, convener. Section 101 and 2 of the bill currently provides that community planning partnerships and partners must comply with any guidance issued by Scottish ministers. All of those amendments seek to adjust to that wording slightly. The government amendments in my name address the concerns that were raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee about the term comply. The committee queried why guidance should be binding in the absence of provision for parliamentary scrutiny. The government's response to that report noted that concern and undertook to bring forward an amendment. Amendments 1033 and 1034 provide that community planning partnerships and partners are under a duty to have regard to guidance rather than a duty to comply with it. That reflects the usual wording that is used in legislation in relation to guidance. It is consistent with references elsewhere in the bill and will keep the DPLR committee happy. More broadly, I recognise the concerns that the committee has raised over complex legal language. I will have to prejudge what Cameron Buchanan intends to say. If his attempt was to simplify the language of the bill, we have used the term, have regard to the reasons that I set out before, because it is the term that is generally used. It is well understood by the courts. There is substantial case law setting out how it is to be interpreted. It requires a person not necessarily to follow guidance to the letter but to be aware of it and to have justifiable reasons for any departure from it. If we were to use the term, we would consider that there would be uncertainty about its meaning and the duty that it imposes. Drou Smith's amendments would change the wording to refer to statutory guidance. Again, I have not heard from the member, but it is not usual practice to refer to guidance issued in pursuance of legislative provision as statutory guidance and certainly not in an act. Officials have run an initial electronic search of legislation and have not found any references to statutory guidance as a term in primary legislation. statutory guidance may well be how we refer to guidance that is mentioned in statute, but it is not a term that is commonplace in primary legislation itself. I would therefore ask Cameron Buchanan and Drou Smith not to move those amendments for members to back the Government amendments, which do much the same and keep the delegated powers and law reform committee happy. I move amendment 1033. I refer back to 106A when I had the same wording and I really wanted less restrictive movements on it, which is why I felt that have regard to was better than comply. I would like to press that amendment. I call on Drou Smith to speak to amendment 1065 and other amendments in the group. There is a difference between statutory guidance and advisory guidance. I know what the minister says about whether the term is using the bill. It is often interesting that, when the Government uses precedent as an argument for and against things from time to time. There is a difference between allowing local partners to attach the appropriate weight to different kinds of guidance that is available. The minister's attempt to do that, given that I was arguing that having regard to was a better alternative earlier in the stage 2 debate, I am happy to join it. To indicate when appropriate, I will not press the amendment. I invite the minister, if he can, to identify what instruments would be excluded by the qualification of the word statutory that Drou Smith seeks to introduce to the legislation. Clearly, if you are describing a particular category, which is statutory, you are by definition excluding others. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to describe what instruments would be excluded by using the word statutory. Minister, it is now your turn to wind up. I wish you well with answering Mr Stevenson's question. It has to be said that this amendment led to a considerable collective scratching of heads because the Scottish ministers have by statute a general guidance making power. Therefore, you could argue that any guidance that we issue under a general guidance power would be statutory guidance. I am clear that there would be a distinction there that it would have much of an effect, but I welcome Drou Smith's position there. However, Minister, adding an adjective before a noun would, if it has any effect, be in effect to restrict what is described to only those to which an adjective can apply and not include those to which that adjective would not apply. One could say that the adjective all would not be in any way restrictive, even though it would add an adjective before the term. In this case, that might be an appropriate parallel. We have an agreement that what matters here is the importance that must be attached to guidance. We have three options. We have what is in the bill unamended, which is must comply with. We have the Government position of have regard to, and we have Cameron Buchanan's suggestion of consider. I think that have regard to strikes the best balance and is in accord with the general expectations of the treatment of guidance in law. Minister, the question is that amendment 1033 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Can I call amendment 1064 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1033? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Move. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, and there will be a vote. Those voting for the amendment, please raise their hands now. Those against the amendment, please show. Those for one, those against six, the question is disagreed to. I now call amendment 1065 in the name of Drew Smith, already debated with amendment 1033. Mr Smith, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. Can I call amendment 1034 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 1033? Minister, formally move, please. Moved. The question is that amendment 1034 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Can I call amendment 1066 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 1033? Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Not moved. Are the committee content? Yes. Thank you. Can I call amendment 1067 in the name of Drew Smith already debated with amendment 1033? Mr Smith, to move or not move? Can I seek the committee's agreement not to move? Thank you for your welcome and wish you well with the rest of stage 2 proceedings. Thank you very much Mr Smith. Are the committee content even? Thank you. The question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. If we move on to section 12, establishment of corporate bodies, can I call amendment 1035 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 1036 and 1038? Minister, to move amendment 1035 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. Those amendments in this group relate to the establishment of a corporate body for community planning purposes. Under section 19 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, the Scottish ministers may, on the application of a local authority together with one or more of the body's office holders and other persons participating in community planning, establish by order a body corporate for community planning purposes. Section 12 of the bill also provides for the establishment of a body corporate for community planning purposes and has the same application requirements, i.e. an application must be made by the local authority for the area and at least one other community planning partner. That application reflects how responsibility for community planning has applied until now with the relevant local authority being under a statutory duty to initiate, facilitate and maintain community planning. That is no longer the case under the bill. Section 8, 2, applies duties of governance. That is to facilitate community planning and take reasonable steps to ensure that CPPs carry out their functions effectively and efficiently on a number of community planning partners rather than simply local authorities. Those include the local health board, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the chief constable of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, as well as the local authority for the area. We propose amendment 1035 so that an application to establish a corporate body for community planning purposes would only be valid if made jointly by all of the governance partners listed in section 8, 2. That amendment reflects that all the governance partners listed in section 8, 2 are collectively responsible for the effective governance of the CPP. The original purpose of allowing corporate bodies to be formed was for them to coordinate or further community planning, not as a corporate body that substantially delivers services in itself. However, since the bill was introduced, we have noted representations, including those from the chair of the Accounts Commission in his evidence to the Public Audit Committee on 3 December, which suggests possible value for a community planning partnership to be established as a corporate body which would deliver services directly. Although we do not know of any CPP that wishes to establish a corporate body, that amendment makes it clear that such incorporation could proceed for the purposes of delivering services. Clearly, in any such scenario, a community planning partnership that wishes to establish itself as a corporate body would have to demonstrate the merits of this conversion before the Scottish ministers would lay draft regulations before Parliament and indeed before the Parliament would approve the draft regulations. Amendment 1036 will remove the words, including in particular its conduct and co-ordination from section 121, with a view to clarifying that the community planning functions of a corporate body could be wider than that. Although there has been continued background interest in the possibility of establishing CPPs as incorporated bodies, there has to date never been a firm proposal nor are we aware of any proposed applications for incorporation down the line. The effect of Cameron Buchanan's amendment 1068 is that another enactment or rule of law could prevent a body established by regulation from carrying out a function set out in the regulations. The legislation, as it is, acts as a safeguard to support the carrying out of functions by the body so that a new and yet to be established corporate body could carry out community planning. If such an application were received, that would be subject to ministerial approval and parliamentary scrutiny, which would include consideration of all matters referred to in section 12, including what functions such a body would have. I do not think that it is helpful to restrict the operation of that section by removing subsection 4B. I therefore invite Cameron Buchanan not to move his amendment and I ask the committee to support amendments 1035 and 1036. I move amendment 1035. Cameron Buchanan, to speak to amendment 1068 and other amendments in the group, please. Withdraw, thank you very much. We can do that at the appropriate time, but you do not want to speak at this moment in time. Any other members? No? Sorry about that. I am just trying to see clarification from the minister. He indicated at the present moment that there has been no approach by a community planning partnership to establish a corporate body. I am just wondering why he feels that it is appropriate at this time to put that in the legislation if there was an approach by a community planning partnership or two partners within that community planning partnership to set up a corporate body. Then there would need to be further legislation laid before Parliament to allow that to happen. Would it not have been more appropriate to leave the section out at the present time until such a time? We were confident that a corporate body was the best way to take forward community planning partnerships. Before I ask you to wind up, my understanding minister that there is only one community planning partnership that has ever really leaked at incorporation and decided not to do so. I do not know if I am correct in that assumption or not. It is the case that that is currently in legislation. Why is it necessary to leave it in, do you feel, even though nobody has made that application, as Mr Wilson says? There is an issue here that this power exists at the moment under the 2003 act and there is obviously a choice there as to whether to get rid of that power from primary legislation or to update it so that it remains an option that can be under consideration. We consider that this is something that has been debated in the past. We do not necessarily see any reason to move away from the purpose of having that as an option there. It has been said that, as I pointed out by the chair of the Accounts Commission, that there might be value in that, so to keep the option open in primary legislation, update it to the new governance landscape but to require secondary legislation for implementation would seem to us to be a balanced approach and happily take intervention. I understand where the Audit and Commission might be coming from in terms of setting up incorporated bodies, but my concern would be given that it would not be that the community planning partnership as a whole would be that incorporated body or potentially not the community planning partnership as a whole would be that incorporated body. What we have actually got here is that two or more partners may decide to become a corporate body in relation to delivering services that potentially may be being delivered by other community planning partners within that community planning partnership. It is that issue about where the division takes place between the corporate body with two or maybe more partners and the community planning partnership. Would the minister not envisage some potential conflict between the status of the corporate body versus the status of the community planning partnership? Just to clarify this, the existing 2003 power was a local authority in partnership with another, so that would be two participants. Sorry, minister, I am not disagreeing with you. The problem is that that does not make the 2003 legislation right. What I was just about to say was that that was the 2003 act. This provision would require all to participate and to jointly apply, so that would not be an issue like the 2003 act where there were two organisations, one of them the local authority. That would be a joint application by all community planning partnership governance partners, so they would have to be content and collectively agreeing to that, which would remove the prospect of creating something that would cause difficulties with the other. That is to leave the option open for a CPP collectively to come together and argue that it would make a case for corporate body status and leave that option open subject to parliamentary scrutiny should they wish to take that option up. The question is that amendment 1035 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1036 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 1035. Minister, could you formally move, please? The question is that amendment 1036 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1068 in the name of Cameron Buchanan? Already debated with amendment 1035. Mr Buchanan, to move or not move? Are the committee content? The question is that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1037 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 1015. Minister, to move formally, please? The question is that amendment 1037 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 1069 in the name of Alec Riley, a group with amendment 1070? Alec Riley, to move amendment 1069 and speak to both amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I'm happy to move amendment 1069 and speak to amendments within the group. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is consistency in the application of community engagement standards across Scotland without compromising the development of standards to take account of local circumstances. There is much good practice in the public sector when it comes to consultation with communities. However, this practice is not always of a consistently high standard. To genuinely involve communities in the design of public services, the high quality involvement of communities in local decision making must become second nature to public services as well as being part of their everyday core purpose. The amendments that are tabled by me will mean that placing the national standards for community engagement on a statutory basis will ensure that, during the development of the national outcomes part 1 and local outcome improvement plans part 2, best practice in community engagement is adhered to. Concern has been expressed that by placing the national standards for community engagement in statute that this would limit the development of standards at the local level and public bodies would be hampered in developing participative techniques to fit local structures. The amendments as they stand would not have this effect. It should be possible for public bodies to use a range of participative techniques but, in certain circumstances, be required to apply the national standards for community engagement. In particular, community planning partners should have to follow the standards for community engagement when engaging with communities to draw up local outcome improvement plans. With that, I ask for support from the committee for these amendments. Right at the very end of his remarks, Alex Rowley used the phrase local improvement outcomes. That goes to the heart of this. We are focusing on processes that carry with them the real danger of removing or for community bodies appearing to remove flexibility on how they undertake the tasks that they undertake and, indeed, inhibiting the development of new and innovative ways of engaging with communities. Because, at the end of the day, this is all, in a sense, noises off to communities. What actually matters is the outcomes and the sense of empowerment that communities gain from the passage of this legislation and everything that flows from it. I am pretty uncomfortable with the idea that we should make this statutory, require everybody to step up to the mark, rather than, as I would prefer to see, local communities working out for themselves and therefore having ownership of and commitment to what they want to do. A standard, yes, that relates to outcomes, by all means, but a standard that relates to processes. Even if the Government is in favour of it, I would still be doubtful. I agree very much with the intention behind this amendment. I recognise that we all want to make the public sector engage efficiently and effectively with the public and communities across Scotland. We know that local government and other public bodies are increasingly using a really impressive range of community engagement activities to consult people and offer opportunities to participate on activities, plans and service delivery. We also know that the range and degree of participation can vary considerably. The national standards for community engagement provides a good practice model for both formal and informal community engagement. Its use over time has been patchy. However, I believe that there are better ways than this amendment to secure the objective that we share here. A great deal of impact can be realised through the use of guidance, which is much more adaptable and flexible. For example, in the stage 1 debate, I highlighted that the national standards for community engagement predate the mass use of social media in this country, something that is very important for any kind of community outreach and engagement. We know from earlier discussions, section 10, which we have just amended, local authorities, community planning partners and public service authorities, that we are required to have regard to guidance in exercising their functions. I repeat the commitments made by my predecessor, Derek Mackay, that we are going to take the national standards for community engagement, specify them as part of that guidance and update and refresh them to reflect the new context. I also believe that, if we were to lay regulations, as the amendment suggests, we would have to provide further supplementary guidance on that anyway to exemplify what good practice would look like and how it should be applied to borrow a phrase from the local government committee's earlier statements, take the gobbledygook of the act and translate it into something that people working at the coal phase would use. There will need to be guidance either way. I would also be concerned about embedding one term here, which is community engagement. In meetings with stakeholders over the last few months, some have suggested that community participation or community empowerment might be a better term for the refreshed standards. If we put that in statute at the moment, we will maintain one model. The new context that we are trying to develop with stakeholder organisations and with the public sector should not be underestimated. This bill will change, as its entirety, the landscape of participation and engagement. It will make clear, as if any kind of clarity was needed, that community bodies have a right to participate in the decisions that affect them and that public authorities have a duty to respond to that. I expect public authorities to be looking for guidance to help them do that. As good practice continues to evolve, the guidance that companies will need to change and keep up. Secondary legislation is not the best way to do that. I accept that there may well be space in the bill where we can improve it further to ensure greater participation from the public and communities across Scotland in the activities of public bodies and local authorities. That could be a much broader power than the one that is specified to promote and facilitate participation across the board in all activities of a very wide range of bodies. In order to have that broad impact, I would expect or intend any such amendments to come forward later in the bill rather than to focus on CPPs. I note that the amendment refers only to the CPP partners engaged in governance under section 8, not to all partners as listed in schedule 1. I also expect the national standards to be, for example, considered by local authorities in their consultations on common good. As I said before, I agree with the intention behind this amendment, but I think that there is a better way to achieve its aims. I would ask Mr Rowley to withdraw amendment 1069, not to move amendment 1070. If, after the conclusion of stage 2, he was still unsatisfied with where the bill was, I would be happy to speak to him further to see if he believes more still needs to be done and we can do it together. However, as I said, I would anticipate there to be further developments later in the bill covering the entirety of the bill rather than being narrowly focused on CPPs. Alex Rowley, to wind up and to press or withdraw. Thank you, convener. Mr Gilgirl has come to Stewart Stevenson's point. He just misunderstands what is intended. It is not about trying to tell communities how to consult, it is about putting the national guidelines into statute so that community planning partners and their consultation will abide by national recognised standards for community engagement. I welcome the fact that the minister says that the national standards are to be updated and refreshed. I think that that needs to happen. My key point would be that when doing so, I really cannot understand why we would not set minimum standards for consultation by public bodies. I certainly do not have the same enthusiasm at this stage for the bill that he does in terms of how it is going to transform the engagement of communities and get a lot of these public bodies to engage to the extent that they need to be done. I am happy at the stage given the commitment that he gives to withdraw the amendment in order that we can have that discussion and discuss it further. If we both want to achieve the same thing, which is to have communities set their agenda, then let's work for that. I am happy to withdraw at the stage given the commitment that the minister has given. Are the committee content that Mr Riley withdraws amendment 1069? We will deal with amendment 1070 and a number of other amendments that we have discussed today at future meetings. That ends consideration of amendments for today. I remind members that amendments to parts 3 and 5 of the bill should be lodged with the clerks and the legislation team by 12 noon this Friday. I thank members for their participation today and for their patience with the convener. I suspend and move on to private session.