Good morning everyone and welcome to the 25th meeting in 2017 of the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee. Can I remind everyone present to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent? We have received apologies from Fulton MacGregor this morning. The first item on the agenda is a decision on taking business in private. The committee has asked to consider item 3 in private relating to the proposed aquaculture inquiry. All that is agreed. Therefore, I would like to move on to agenda item 2, which is the second evidence session on the islands Scotland bill. There will be two panels. The first panel, I would like to welcome here, consists of Fergus Murray, the head of economic development and strategic transportation of our Garland butte council, Andrew Fraser, head of democratic services, North Ayrshire Council, and Dr Audrey Sutton, the head of connected communities North Ayrshire Council. Just in case you haven't given evidence before, you don't need to push any buttons on your console, that will all be done for you. We have various themes which we're going to go through, which will be led by members. I would ask if you want to respond. If you try and catch my eye, I will bring you in. If you all look the other way, I will try and bring one of you in who doesn't look away quick enough. On that basis, I would like to start off with and ask John Finnie to start off, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel, and thanks for some of your contributions. Excuse me, can I ask whether the overall intention of the bills is in line with expectations? Andrew? I'm happy to start yet very much so. I have to say, I think probably that the broad view is that A accords with the general direction of travel in terms of the Christie commission, the subsidiarity, locality planning, and it's an extension of that, which targets the particular needs of Ireland. The broad direction of it, I'm absolutely conscious that the bill is quite broad in its terms, but I think it's very much the starting point. From that point of view, certainly from a North Ayrshire point of view, we very much support its aims. That gets to your welcome. Yes, I think it comes to the bill and I think there's a lot of provisions that the council welcomes. I think there's some concerns and I'm reflecting the views of our island communities that we have consulted before we came here. It could have maybe gone a little bit further. It could have addressed some issues that the island communities may be expected to see, but there's a kind of understanding that maybe that's coming later through the national plan process in other aspects. John, do you want to follow that up? I think that perhaps Audrey wanted to come in. Audrey, sorry, I was taking you in with your response in line with Andrews, but maybe that was wrong. Sorry, Audrey. Thank you. I'd like to balance the views of our island communities with the views of North Ayrshire, and certainly in line with Andrew and Fergus. There is a recognition in the bill of the considerable work that we did around the consultation with our future islands bill, so I think that that works did us in good stead, and the elements of the bill that have emerged from that work feels right to the islanders, but I think that Fergus to the devil will be in the detail, and they would very much like to have explored more of the detail than is available to us at this stage. With what we have in front of us at this stage, do you think that that will lead to greater empowerment for island communities? Will I? The sense on the part of our island communities is that it will be a delicate balance between the national island's plan, the role of the local authorities and then the role of the island communities, and again they're very keen to be involved in that debate as it continues. I think that the potential is there, but again the detail will be really important in terms of the relationship between, for example, the Sincloic agreement, the local outcomes improvement plans, and as Andrew said, the importance particularly to us in North Ayrshire of locality planning. We've co-produced that with our scheme of decentralisation with our communities, so we've come to a place where we're really in a powerful place around the sense of locality planning, so we need to make sure that all of those things respect each other. Fergus Ewing, do you want to come in now? Yes, I think that the communities are hopeful, very hopeful that the bill will enable that to happen. I think that they're a bit wary of top-down or kind of top-down decisions coming through the bill or controls coming from Edinburgh. I think that they're very much looking to see how powers can be delegated down closer to their communities, and that's very strongly come across from the island communities that we've spoken to. As usual in Argyllin but, there's a lot of variation in that as well in terms of some islands are very, very strong in terms of what they want to control and others are a bit more relaxed about it, but I think that there is a general, not fair, but a little bit of apprehension, it's not another way to have more controls on island communities, so it's just to reflect that. Can you also ask about the chronology of the backline to the bill? The three island authorities are clearly a different range of challenges to yourselves. Do you think that the mainland authorities with islands, inhabited islands, were in quick enough into the process? Would you have preferred to have had greater input earlier? Audrey, it looks like you didn't look away quick enough, sorry. Some of that depends on the relationships that exist locally. In terms of hearing the voices of the island communities, and I'm sure that Fergus is the same, our island communities feel very much as if they have a voice. On Arryn and on Cumbria, we already have our locality planning partnerships and health and social care partnerships that are contiguous. We have Arryn and Cumbria economic fora and economic plans. In terms of the sense that they've had their voices heard, I think that they do feel as if that has been very well reflected in the bill. In terms of the local authorities themselves, there is a sense perhaps that we're less experienced in the process of considering island proofing and the political agenda around the islands, although clearly it's always been central to some of our thinking. Potentially we may feel less experienced in that. Audrey, do you want to add to that? I suppose that the point is that there probably was an appreciation that what the three island councils were trying to do was something that would benefit all the councils that had islands, and certainly we were engaged with them informally and had an overview of what their aims were. There was nothing in what they were trying to do, which prejudiced our position as a combination of mainland and island authority. Harking back to an earlier point, it is important to recognise that, obviously, islands are different. The national plan and the national guidance should not try and categorise islands as being one type. Clearly you have places like Cumbria that you can commute to the centre of Glasgow from there on a day basis. That is very much different from some of their more remote islands, but equally all of them will share some commonalities, such as transport links in particular. I think that there is a little bit of sense from Argyll and Bute that we came to the party a little bit late. I think that there are a number of reasons for that. Maybe it is not from ourselves a lack of a full understanding of the significance of the discussions at the early stages. Other priorities within our council in terms of having to deal with a whole range of different issues. However, we very much feel as if we are catching up. We recognise the importance of that and we are strongly of the view of playing a full part in that. That is certainly reflected from our communities. Our island communities have a sense that we have come to it a bit late and maybe that is how the bill has been drafted, maybe not taking into account of Argyll and Bute. That is what has come from our consultation with the communities. John, do you want to come back? Do you feel part of the party now? Are you fully included? That seems to be nods all round. Rhaedra, I think that you were next. The bill covers island council areas and also mixed island mainland council areas. Where do you think the challenges lie? We both represent a council area that has islands rather than island councils. Do you think that that is going to be more difficult for you to meet the aspirations of the bill or are there challenges specifically there for yourselves? Or does the bill deal with that adequately? It does adequately deal with it if you look at it through the lens of locality planning and subsidiarity. The bill is essentially about the Christy objective of empowering islands, about community planning partners working together with community to target priorities and objectives specific to the needs of those individual islands. In many ways, that is no different for other communities in our area. For example, North Ayrshire split our area into six individual localities, all of whom have their demographic profile and their own individual needs. I do not think that the island's bill focus on, for example, Arran or Cumbria in any way detracts from a similar locality planning process dealing with our mainland areas, which in our case have more deprivation often. It makes it more complex from our point of view in the consideration of the close relationship between islands and remote peninsulas. I think that the islands have picked this up in terms of concern that there may be potential to create inequalities between these communities. The islanders are talking about it because the difference in nature of our islands could be potential to create inequalities between different island cluster groups. It is the need to take quite care of how the bill is taking forward and the decisions that are coming forward. They do not want to create inequalities in very close line communities that have extremely strong relationships with each other. The island communities and Argyll and Bute strongly recognise that and wish that the bill takes full account of that as it moves forward. Given that island councils probably have a stronger negotiating position with the Scottish Government under the bill to try and get devolved powers, would they not face the same issues in their island groupings? In all the three main islands, there is a bigger island, and then there is the smaller islands. The smaller islands might have the same aspirations as the mixed mainland island council areas, in that they would be looking at the centre and saying that it is not just about devolving powers to the island council, it is the island council devolving powers to the other islands. Does that not fit the same or is there a specific challenge just because of the geography? Focussing on that. You were sort of ready for that one. I am conscious of that in the audience, but in terms of what we have here, I totally recognise what you are saying. I lived in Shetland for 11 years. There was a different relationship between the mainland of Shetland and some of the outer islands of Shetland. There was actually a difference between the town of Lerwick and the rural community. There might be more specific issues that you have to deal with in terms of remote peninsular. It is more complex in our island but maybe than in the island communities. I cannot really speak for the other islands. I can only speak from our island but what they have said in terms of the kind of concerns that they have in terms of whatever happens for the islands that is welcomed in terms of additional powers or delegation or control, that somehow does not disadvantage the remote rural areas that lie next to them. It is not so much of an issue for North Ayrshire because, essentially, we have two distinct islands, Great Cumbria and Arran, but I think that your point is very much one of subsidiarity. If there is a genuine commitment by all to engage the principle of subsidiarity, that equally applies for the larger islands, taking it forward to the smaller islands. From a bill point of view, it promotes that principle of subsidiarity by recognising the needs of island communities and allowing them to be addressed. Audrey, you are happy at its answer. I am at that ready to come back in before you, if there is something you want to say. There is an issue in here that underlies some of this, which is about the capacity and the willingness and determination of some of our communities to require our demand more subsidiarity. Certainly, we could probably say that on the islands, the social capital and the capacity of the island communities, partly because of the resilience that island communities require to have, would define the communities and define the ask of the island communities of the local authority or of Scottish Government. A lot of that is about capacity and relationships. We can determine principles of subsidiarity or locality planning, but a lot of that will be what comes through from the communities themselves and how we manage the relationships and what we have tried to do in North Asia through locality planning. It is a very powerful driver for us. What we have tried to do is ensure transparency and visibility across the whole of the local authority in terms of understanding and that represents cost of prioritisation. Our urban communities understand the issues of the island communities and vice versa. There is an issue in here of the capacity and the managing of the local circumstances, which sits separately from the theory. Roger, I will let you follow up if you would like. Just on that point, are you saying that the bill's aims are okay, but how island communities will be able to implement them and live up to them really depends on the fabric of that community, the know-how of the people that live there, the size of it, I guess, for want of just economies and knowledge? I would say that that is certainly a factor, but clearly the support that they are given to maximise the potential of the bill is also going to be an important factor as well. Just a final question that you talked about being left behind by our islands and our future in coming to it late in the day. Why was that? Was it that mainland island councils didn't feel that that was for them at that point, or was it that the island councils were stealing a march in you? Audrey, briefly, if you might please. I think that the point that I made, perhaps badly, was that we in North Asia were very fully engaged in their islands and our future work, and that set the context for our continued involvement in the next stages. Andrew, do you want to say something? I think that it's also important to recognise that, for example, my understanding is that the boundaries proposals in the bill actually came from Arran. That arose from a meeting between our community groups and the then ministers, so it wasn't as if we were cut out in any way. I think that, to be frank, the three island councils were doing such a good job, we really didn't want to prejudice what they were doing. I'm going to bring Liam in at that stage, because I think that you had a small question. Just following up, I think that it's worse reflect in our islands, our future was born out of recognition of the three island authorities that very often they didn't play to their strengths in terms of what united them. There were too often opportunities to play one off against the other, and a lot of that was driving the process initially. I was interested by Dr Sutton's point about the different capacity in islands. Do you think that the bill will require to provide safeguards for those island communities where there isn't perhaps either the appetite or the capacity to take on some of the powers and the responsibilities that may flow through this bill? To avoid a situation where it simply foisted upon them and they're told to get on with it, where in a sense they're potentially being set up for failure, that unlocking the potential of islands is one thing, but that needs to be gaged by the island communities themselves. That's a yes or no answer, but I'm sure you'll want to flesh it out a wee bit, but I would like to bring all the panel in on that, so if you could keep it short. I think that one of the notable features of the bill is the links with the Community Empowerment Act, and I think that the spirit of the two documents feels in places very similar. So yes, and I think that if we see them in parallel and we see the advantages, the support, the capacity building that's inherent within the Community Empowerment Act, then the two, I think, complement each other. Andrew, do you want to add anything to that? Just very briefly, I think that the guidance will need to support empowerment and avoid, I suppose, the risk of trying to impose minimum standards, which might in turn be viewed as being trying to impose a one-size-fits-all approach, which, given the diversity of islands, I think wouldn't work. I would agree with that. I think that it's essential that there is, given the range and size of our islands, for very few people on it, some islands more isolated than others, others have got relationships. I think that there needs to be some safeguards to help empower communities or to give them the experience and skills to take full advantage of the bill. Okay, thank you. I'm going to move on from there and ask Jamie to lead off on the next bit, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I have three very distinct questions, and I would like to try and get through them all, so I don't feel obliged to answer every question. The first one is around the strategy of the bill, which is to enable a national islands plan to be presented to Parliament. In that respect, does the panel have any views on whether they think that that is the best approach to allow the bill to enable island communities or power island communities? In other words, by creating a strategy rather than putting detail in the bill itself, do you think that that's the right approach? It's important to set out the overall strategy and to link it to community empowerment and to Christia and locality planning and so on. From that point of view, a clear statement of Government strategy is absolutely essential. I think that the difficulty is, including precise provisions within the bill, is the diversity of islands in particular. I suppose that I view very much this bill as the starter for 10. It's a developing journey. I can't think of anything better than to have a national strategy. I'm sure that others might have some reservations, but I can't propose any alternative, certainly. Fergus Ewing nodding at that, do you agree with that? I think that there's strong support from our communities in terms of a national island strategy, but it's also very clear that it needs to come down to a level to maybe our island beauty level or even island level in terms of dealing with the different issues that islands have. It's not like a one-size-fits-all, but there are welcomers of it, maybe some of the key themes or something is through that. However, they are also looking for a provision that is broken down to a more local level as well. That came quite clear. Do you want to go with your next question? Great, yes. That leads nicely into my next question. My next question was based on some of the feedback that we had on the committee visit to Moll in one of the sessions there. The feedback was very much that the bill itself lacked a specific objective. It was an island's bill and it would create the path for a national strategy to be introduced, but the bill itself didn't have any specific aims or objectives. Do you have a view on the bill and its current draft? Very quickly, the view that was coming from our island communities is pretty much in line with what you've described, but it's important to separate out the principles of the bill, the approach that would be driven by a bill and the issues that may be tackled by some of the legislation. Certainly, the underpinning view of the island communities is that that can be overcome by co-production of a national strategy because they certainly have very clear views, but again, the top-down approach without a clear view of what the vision is clear, but the objectives are less clear. If they could be co-produced, there would be huge buy-in to developing the appropriate approach. The objectives should be in the bill or in the strategy? I think that, to an extent, the island communities would be reassured by having some of the objectives in the strategy, so that's a clearer understanding of what is nationally trying to be achieved. Fergus Ewing, do you want to comment on that? I don't have a clear view of whether it should be in the bill. I think that in terms of the community, I recognise what the bill is as an enabler. They are very keen to see what the national plan says in terms of what would be the key themes or the key aims of that. They are very keen to be involved in that in terms of how to frame it and to involve a wider range of community views as that has been developed to guide the key principles of what we are trying to achieve in the island communities. That's the feeling that's come through from our consultation. I think that it's clear that there is some commonality in some of the issues that the island communities face and have faced for a very long time, such as transportation issues, affordable housing, access to mainland health care services, social care and so on. We've had lots of anecdotal evidence of that. When I questioned the Scottish Government team last week during our evidence session, Ian Turner, to the same question of whether the bill should have more detail responded, the bill could contain a list of issues that must be included in the national island's plan. I think that you are right to expect transport and digital connectivity to be in the plan, for example. Again, that comes back to my question. Is the bill lacking in terms of detail, in terms of what should be in the plan, not necessarily what the plan is, but what should be in the plan? Is there an opportunity here when the bill progresses through committee in various stages that we could ensure that the bill specifically lists certain areas of life that the bill must address or that the strategy must address? Audrey, do you want to lead on that? I think that the island communities would be disappointed if some of that detail wasn't at least enshrined in the approach.  I would agree and I think that there is quite a long list of overarching issues that are clearly identified that could be there. As long as it's not, I suppose it's then, that's the only things that would be considered in terms of if there's room for flexibility or issues that we haven't thought about in terms of, because specific communities have strong views of different things, but I would agree that there's a list of key things like digital connectivity, transport connectivity that should be there. Sorry, can I just push slightly on that from the committee's point of view? Just clarify those things that you believe should be in the bill. Do you think that the island communities will be disip... Sorry, in the plan. Do you think that island communities will be frustrated if they're not, and it might undermine the whole point of the plan in the first place? I think that our communities have expressed a bit of frustration about the lack of detail in terms of the bill, but we were trying to... There was a debate or a thought that that might be reflected through the national islands plan in terms of dealt with through that. However, if it could be dealt with before that stage, I think that that would give them some reassurance that some of the critical issues that they have and that they've had for generations can be dealt with through this bill. No, I think that you make a good point, convener, and I think that the difference here is whether those non-exhaustive lists of items that should be addressed in the plan are in the plan or are referred to in the bill that they should be in the plan, and that's what I'm getting at, is should the bill specifically list, perhaps non-exhaustively, issues that the plan must address, which it currently does not? I'm seeing two of you nodding. Andrew is looking pensive, so do you want to... I suppose it's partly thinking about what is the purpose of the national islands plan, and to me it's probably twofold. One, it's to bring strategic direction to national policy and national agencies, and I think that it would be useful for the bill to include a list of the national issues that the islands plan should address, but also I think that the national plan should encourage a process whereby local authorities, community planning partners adopt a data-led approach with their communities to identify the needs of specific islands to get those priorities agreed and taken forward. I think that you need a process that A captures the national issues but B ensures that the particular needs of islands are addressed in a local context. That brings us on to the next question, which is from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. Yes, it does indeed. I wanted to ask about the level of consultation that you expect to see in relation to the islands plan. Do you think that the proposed timetable of a year after the act comes into force is realistic? Going back to what was mentioned previously about top-down decision making, what level of the consultation, because when we were in Mull, as was mentioned, the members of our group were saying that they would like to be statutory consultees to all the decision making that goes on. Obviously, the authorities will be consultees. How far down into the community would you like to see the consultation go? Quite a lot of questions in that. I am going to let Fergus Kickoff. Yes. From the views that are expressed by the community, there are very strong views in terms of our consultation through strong views from the islands communities that as many people within the islands group should be consulted as part of this process as we go forward. A very strong view is that young people are somehow engaged in this because they are conscious that young people are struggling to get into it. Yes, there is a bit of debate on how practical that would be, but in terms of it from our communities, there are very strong views that island people have to be an integral part of this process as it goes on. I think that the timescale is very ambitious in terms of dealing with a plan that is going to be robust and that is going to deal with the issues that the islands have, looking at land use plans and the times. A lot of that process is about having realistic or meaningful engagement with stakeholders and groups and bodies. I would say that that certainly has to be highlighted, but there was a strong view from the communities. If the bill is going to make a difference, island communities have to be integral to coming forward and to consult it. Do you want to add to that? I mean, only if there are additional things, if you think that focus has covered it, I am happy. I think that the response to invitations to be involved by island communities will be really, really strong. I think that one of the things that you mentioned, and I have to say that, that is probably quite normal, but one of the things that emerged was the care that we need to take, not just to engage with the usual suspects and with the standard range of consultees. For example, community councils do not necessarily have the levels and depth of engagement that we would like them to have in all of our communities. A strong message there is that we have to consider a range of representative groups and organisations, as well as individuals with clear views. Locally, we have the ability to do all that, but I think that we need to be given the time to do that, because island communities think that it is a chance of a lifetime, a once in a generation opportunity. I hope that, as we move forward into a more co-production process, that will not be the case, as Andrew Dysguide said. I think that we would rather do it properly than quickly. I think that the timescale that you are all agreeing is ambitious. I want to move on, if I may, next to Mike, who wants to talk about another issue. I would like to move on to the issue of island proofing. When we were in Moab, on the informal evidence, several people suggested to us that the only way to avoid a tick box exercise approach to this island proofing business was to ensure that you had real consultation with the islanders themselves. What the bill does is to give a duty to the 60-yard plus public bodies mentioned in the annex to island proof any change in policy. However, what the islanders were saying to us was that they are afraid that it might turn into simply a tick box exercise, because if you have 60 different public bodies, they do not want somebody sitting in Edinburgh or Glasgow, wherever it is, just saying, well, we have looked at it as it will affect island X. That is fine, tick box. The only way to avoid that is to ask the islanders themselves, what do you feel about that? I think that it is a very good point, and it is a similar issue in relation to equalities. The key point is that island proofing needs to be mainstreamed throughout all processes and all parts of a decision-making process. It is not sufficient, for example, to have made up your mind, gathered your evidence, got your recommendations and then, at the last minute, do an island proof. You should be thinking about the needs of islands similarly to equalities when you start doing your consultation and gathering your evidence. Probably, it would be helpful to have guidance on island proofing to that effect. I have a very strong response from the local communities that cannot just be a tick the box exercise. They see that island proofing would be real evidence of agencies working together, co-ordinating things together and real results coming out of it. It was very strongly that they wanted to see a specific island impact assessments undertaken, real evidence that things are making a difference and that they are regularly reporting back to communities on how different initiatives or policies are with and have impacted on that community whether they are negative or positive. I do not think that our island communities will accept to tick the box exercise because of the bill. Clare warning, Mike. Do you want to? Absolutely right. I agree with what you are saying. Impact assessments are going to be really the key to all of this, because that is the reality rather than a tick box exercise. You have an impact assessment and you consult people. That is going to cost money. Do you think that there is enough money allocated in this process, or will that—if it is not allocated in the bill—if you are going to do it properly, it will increase the budget, the cost to all those 60-plus Government organisations? Do you have any thoughts on that? It will cost money. I think that from what we have said, from our gallon-pupes perspective, it will be highlighted as a concern about the resourcing Sorry, because the actual resourcing of the costs of implementation are going to be covered later. I think that it is really the costing that you are driving at just to clarify. I hope that I am right, Mike. It is the cost of doing the consultation, setting up the plan that we should be driving at. What I was trying to get at was the actual cost of an impact assessment done by the 60-plus—not the Government, but the 60-plus organisations that will be involved in this. Maybe you could focus on that specific bit and come on to the financial cost of doing all the work that comes out of the islands bill later on. It is really just a question of the consultation and the planning stage at this stage. Audrey, would you like to lead off on that? That is one subset of a range of discussions that we have in local authorities and in public sector bodies. I think that it is about the alignment, the principles and the culture of taking into account the needs and wants of our island communities. At the end of the day, if all the island or mainland authorities have the requirements of the impact assessments, we will be very far away from what we do at the moment. Clearly, our island communities are very important to us. We are very vocal and have lots of social capital, so they are very much part of the fabric of what we do. In terms of considering them, it will be interesting to see how much more is required. John, do you want to push that a bit more? We are going to cover the finance of the costs of it later. We are going to come back to that. John, you had some more questions on the island proofing. Of course, just as we are speaking, we are using two phrases here, one being island proofing and one being island impact assessment. I wonder whether the two are the same. If my jacket is waterproof, that suggests that no water will get through. An island proofing suggests that people on the islands will have exactly the same services as everybody else. Whereas an impact assessment suggests to me more what we are going to think about it or what we are going to try and work around it, but you will never have the same, if you are on an island, you are always going to be a bit different from if you are on the mainland. Is that a fair thinking? Andrew Absolutely. I would compare it to equality. The important thing is that you have thought about the needs of islands when you are developing policy and implementing policy. It does not mean to say that you have to do what the islands might want, because clearly you will have competing issues within North Ayrshire. For example, our biggest areas of deprivation are not in the islands, but you have to have thought about the needs of islands. That, as you say, is impact assessment. I would agree with what he has just said. I do not really have anything more to add to it. I want to raise that at this stage. Ministerial guidance. We are discussed what should be in the plan and what should not be in the plan. What should be in the ministerial guidance about island proofing? Do we feel that that should be prescriptive? Is there a lot coming from the centre as to how councils should operate but other public authorities as well? Or should it be more flexible just because the islands are so different? Andrew, do you want to go on that? I think that subsidiarity is the key principle. Subsidiarity is empowering islands and communities, but, clearly, there have to be certain minimum standards to ensure that all public agencies have regard for the needs of islands. I would address it from those principles. No, I agree with that. It is back to the question that Jamie asked. We need to inspire confidence in the island communities that they are sufficient in the bill to make a difference to them. It is that balance between what sits above and what is made from below. I think that that will be a delicate balance to achieve. I am going to bring back in Mike, if I may, on a point. I am going to bring Jamie back in. I am afraid that we are going to have to move on to the next section. It is just following the point that John asked. The response in many bills and guidance issued by the Government over the years always says, have regard to. That is the point. If the Government says that you must have regard to, you have to show that you have regard to. John's question was basically, should the Government, in its advice to the 60-odd public bodies, be more prescriptive to say that, if it is going to island proof, then you need to do it in this particular way? Or, do we just revert to have regard to, which is basically, you can do anything you like? That is the point. The key is going to be in the guidance that the Government gives to those 60-odd public bodies. Should it be prescriptive and this is how you should do it, or should it just be or you should have regard to? I am going to let one person come back in on that and Audrey is looking as if she wants to lead on that. I think that there is a distinction between having regard to and having due regard to, how far that might go, but certainly again to inspire confidence in the island communities and again to assure them that we are serious about this, then their expectation is that I would hesitate to use the word prescription, but certainly we would like to inspire confidence that this is going to make a difference. Jamie, I can bring you in very quickly. Thank you. It is very relevant to what Mike has just said. In part 3 of the bill, section 7, there is only one sentence regarding island proofing. It just says that the relevant authority must have regard to island communities and carry out its functions. Is it really island proofing? Is this bill going far enough to island proof policy? As a local authority, for example, I deal with a tremendous amount of case work from iron of people who are struggling to access services on the mainland, for example. Does this bill island proof those public services? I am going to let one person come back on that. I do not know who would like to do that. I suppose that the model is equalities. In the same way that equalities forces people to have regard to the needs of protected characteristics, that should do the same for islands. It has worked for equalities groups, therefore I have no reason to believe that it will not work for islands. I am going to move on to the next bit, which is going to be led by Rhaedda. A really quick question about constituency boundaries. You will see that the bill protects the Western Isles constituency boundary in the same way that Orkney and Shetland are already protected. Do you have any issues with that, or are you quite happy that that has happened in the bill? Are island communities as they would like to support our island colleagues and their aspirations? That is the same from Argyll and Bute as well. I think that we will just move on, if we may, to the next bit, which is going to be led by Richard. Good morning, panel. The 2004 act of local government brought in multi-member warts, three and four member warts. The bill provides the flexibility to recommend to the Scottish Minister to propose literal warts of one or two councillors to be created covering populated islands only. I have a couple of questions regarding that. What would you say was the practical issues that three or four member warts create, and what is the impact of switching to a one or two member wart? Do you feel that this proposal would mean for the overall work of councillors in the local authority area? How would that work? Should candidates reside on the island only? How do we ensure that that happens? Who would like to lead off quite a complex series of questions? I will certainly lead off from a North Ayrshire point of view. I think that what a number of our island communities and councillors have said to us is that if you do not live on the island, then once the ferries go off, you have difficulty in knowing what happens during the evening, and so many community groups and meetings happen in the evening. If you do not reside on that island, it is quite difficult to keep in touch with what is happening, unless you are consistently staying on the island. Then, of course, you have the issue of the ferries going off occasionally and so on. For example, if there is a civil emergency, as there was in Arran a few years ago, with the whole island shut down after a snow storm, your member might not necessarily be on the island to support the community. I think that it is that issue about members not residing on the island is the key issue. As regards the impact in North Ayrshire, there is a specific issue that we have with the bill, I am afraid to say. The bill clearly amends the provision that provides that there can be wards of one or two members, but it does not amend the provision in the Local Government Act, which provides that, essentially, there has to be a ratio across the entire local authority area of electorate to a councillor. For example, in North Ayrshire, the current ratio is 3,000 electorate per councillor. Once the bill is implemented, that would remain the same. In other words, for Arran, who has a population of about 3,800, we would end up with one councillor compared to the two resident councillors. They currently have Cumbria with a population of 1,100. We would end up with no councillors, so, for example, had Cumbria been located within Western Isles or Orkney or so on, with their quota of 800, they would have ended up with their own individual ward. It is important to recall that the change was driven originally by the Arran community meeting with Derek Mackay at the time and included that in the consultation paper. I suspect that the Arran community will probably be surprised to learn that the impact is the number of resident members that have ends up being reduced from two to one. It will probably be obvious from our consultation response when it comes. We think that the provision in the local government act needs to be changed to allow the boundaries commission to be able to set a different ratio for individual islands from the mainland of an authority. I found that a boundary commission could do what it wanted to do and never listened to what we wanted to do, but I will go away from that. When we talk about local members—I know that you said—should it be two for each island or should it be one? The other question that I would like to ask is, when we talk about the consultation war-size structure, do you think that islands should have their own—I do not know if your council has—area committees or local decisions? We are talking about relating decisions back to the islands and making people feel as though they are part of the system. Should the islands have a local area committee that is the two, possibly two, local area island councillors that are on the plus of other people? To answer that, I will give you a chance to recover your voice for a minute. That was an area of intense debate among the island communities about the merits of island councillors and very mixed views. There was a strong feeling that island communities need strong representation, but that was a definite. We have four area committees at the moment that are split on a geographical area, some with islands and some that do not. At the moment, there are 14 councillors in Argyll and Bute with island interests due to the multi-board system. If it went through the kind of proposal in the bill, it would mean that maybe there are only seven councillors out of the 33 or so that have direct island interests. There was a concern that that would be counterproductive, although there is a recognition that those councillors would concentrate on island issues and not have to take into mainland issues. Then there was another big feeling that it is good that councillors, even if they are on the mainland and are representing an island, have a strong connection to that island, can smooth between the two communities the concerns and the issues that are faced by those communities. There is strong support for that being recognised. To have an island-only area committee in Argyll and Bute would be impossible to do, because it is going from Bute to Tyree to Collins and saying that they have massively different issues. I know that there are cross issues and common issues, but when we mapped what the issues were of different communities, it is incredibly diverse what the issues were. Some islands suffer from major depopulation, others are dealing with tourism booms and others. I am not sure whether that is workable. The message is very complex, and the islanders were very wary that there could be unintended consequences of it, whatever changes are, and it has to be taken forward very carefully. Bring in John and then get the other two panel members to… Tied in with what the line of art questioning there and what Fergus Marraige has said. Is there a potential to for a little bit of tension between mainland councillors and island councillors if the island councillors say that it is covering 3,000 people in a relatively compact geographical area? A mainland councillor is trying to cover effectively 12,000 because it is a multi-member ward over a very spread-out area. Does that create inconsistency there that might be resented? I would not use the term resented. There are tensions in the practicalities of representing areas. We had the debate when the Boundaries Commission was considering changes in Argyll and Bute to do with our sparsity of population. The size of the area was enormous and dealing with potentially up to 26 community councils. How does a member get round and attend those community councils? When you throw in an island dynamic of having to stay over and stuff, it becomes extremely difficult. I think that there is recognition locally. There is need for tweaking in terms of that there are some island groups that have no representation and there is need for tweaking, but there is not a need to reinvent the entire wheel in terms of dealing with the democratic representation in the Ergill and Bute area. I do not know if Andrew Orrgyw you want to add something briefly to that, but there is another couple of areas that I would like to move on to. If there is something brief that you would like to add to that, I would be very happy to take it. I think that the one question that has not been answered and you touched on it slightly, Fergus, was should the number of island councillors go up in a council area? I think that there is potential for council numbers to increase to ensure that there is valid representation in certain areas. The communities were very wary if there was island councillors go up. Does that impact those less in the mainland? What would the implications be given the size of geography that we have? It is challenging for councillors, especially in Lorne. For example, they have 16 community councils to get around. That is a challenge for any councillor. Andrew, do you want to… I think that there always are tensions to a certain extent. For example, in North Ayrshire, with a single quota of 3,000 per councillor, members in the mainland have a much smaller area geographically to represent, but they might have huge areas of deprivation, whereas the member who represents Ardrossan and Arran finds himself representing a huge area of rurality that is not taking account of their quota. I think that those tensions exist already. The key to the changes is to allow the Boundary Commission to set different quotas that try to meet the aspiration that island communities can have their own ward. Although that is one or two members, it boils down to sheer numbers. I think that we will just move on, if we may, to the next topic. Peter, I think that you are going to lead on that. Thank you, convener, and good morning, folks. I want to explore a wee bit about the marine development provision that is in the Bell. The Bell provides a regulation making power for Scottish ministers to establish a marine licensing scheme for development activities within Scottish Island marine areas. That would require a person to obtain a licence granted by a local authority. Do you, as a representative of local authorities, agree with the regulation making power, and how do you feel that it could be used in practice? I am not seeing anyone. Audrey, do you want to go on that? That is obviously a very powerful issue in the islands. We are in a slightly strange position in as much as Cumbria is two miles away from the mainland. The idea of the 12 nautical mile zone and the discussion around how that might work has certainly been key for us. From a local authority perspective, the devil is in the detail. The clarity at the moment of the relationship between, for example, the national marine plan and, from a North Aesir perspective, we are also part of the Clyde marine plan, the regional marine plan. We clearly have many interest groups in and around the islands. We have specific roles for the local authorities. For us, it is the interface among each of the organisations and approaches, which will be key to making that definitive agreement as to whether or not this is a good or a bad thing. Co-production around how we are involved in how it works. Of the organisational requirements from a local authority, those have been addressed separately in terms of the recognition that it will take additional resources, for example, for the marine licensing agency. That, to an extent, has been addressed, but the detail of that is not clear at all. That has been the message that has come back regularly. We need to understand more about the intention. I am reflecting the views from the island residents in terms of my response. I think that, overall, in terms of all the communities that we consulted, there was a bit of a general disappointment about the proposals that are contained in the bill, in terms of the powers. However, they were fearful that there might be another layer of bureaucracy or another decision-making process that is taken away from communities. There was just a bit of a lack of knowledge in terms of what it means. The added complication from Argyll and Bute was that the island communities were a bit worried about what it meant in terms of whether they would create inequalities between the remote peninsulas that are nearby with them. What is this going to create tensions between communities? There was just a little bit of apprehension there. Again, the inequalities issue came up very strongly across from the island communities about what does that mean. I recognition that some of the things that were most important to them were left out of it. Do you want to develop that strategy? I asked the question last week whether fisheries would be involved. In the clear response that is not going to do with fisheries, you have got to respect marine protected areas as well. There is a real concern as to what it actually means in practice. Do you feel that you will be looking for those licences and powers? Will you be expecting to take those licences and powers when they become available? I would echo the points that the devil is in the detail. I am conscious that the resource issue for local authorities generally does not have boats, so we would end up having to hire to regulate. We would need to look into that in depth. It is the same from Argyll and Bute in terms of some of the unknowns of what it will mean for us in terms of our authority. It is certainly not something that we would say no to, but we really need to know what the implications are for us and our communities as we consider this. You have already said that you have made some consultation with your island communities, and the message that comes back is that we need to know a lot more about what that actually means and that you would accept that that is the result of your consultations to date. It is very clear and it will be followed on by what we write to you. It comes across loud and clear, the uncertainty, the genuine issue about inequalities, what does it mean and everything like that. I am conscious that I did not give you a chance to respond to that, so if you would like to come in. Very briefly, I was only going to introduce the issue of proportionality in terms of the licensing approach. For an authority like North Ayrshire, and we have reviewed this with our colleagues in planning, the number of related discussions and applications may at times be relatively small. Would there be an approach that perhaps took a regional approach to this as opposed to necessarily a single authority approach? That is something that has come up in discussions internally and with our communities, so it may be worth considering it. I am going to move on to John for the final section. The final area, as usual, is the financial memorandum. I am wondering, in the first place, if you feel that the administrative costs that are mentioned in the financial memorandum are realistic, especially between different kinds of authorities. Would they all be the same, or would they be very different from each other? Oedry? Again, as Fergus Eudie said earlier, our written response will go into this in more detail. I do think that there may be a distinction between authorities with islands and island authorities. It is not that there is less of a focus, I would suggest, on islands within our own authority. However, I do think that the proportion of officer time that will now require to be spent on island matters, including the impact assessments, etc., may be proportionally greater in the early stages. That is not to suggest that the culture and ethos are not there, but there certainly could be a question around that. We would suggest that it is possibly light on that. In the past, we have clear concerns about the resource potential impact on the authority. It is a bit of an unknown issue. We are struggling to find out about the number of licenses that are issued and the costs of doing that. We are very resource challenged at the moment. I think that anything that comes and maybe adds to the resource issues that we have as a concern to the authority. The financial may be random that Shetland only has seven licenses per year, which suggests not very many, but there is a dramatic difference in the amount of fees that could be charged from £57 at the bottom to £33,000 at the top. I struggle to know if those are realistic figures. I know that the point was made about a regional approach. Any thoughts specifically on the marine licenses? I suppose that other than probably this discussion emphasises very much as we are at the start of the journey. That is really what the national plan and the impact the island's proofing is about. It is quite difficult to quantify what the costs are, but I echo Fergus's comments that the cash-strap times with matters are probably getting even worse. There are no new resources available. Do you have an issue with Marine Scotland? People would still need to apply to Marine Scotland as well as to the local authority. Do you think that there is the potential for the local authority in Marine Scotland to work together in those? Or have you not got that far? I think that there ultimately is. It is fair to say that, certainly in North Ayrshire, our island communities want more control. Their concern is about their issues, particularly national bodies, not having regard to it. From their point of view, anything that brings control more locally is better, but that has to be balanced against issues of cost, resource and efficiency. I would like to ask a question at the end of that. We are coming up with island plans. We are told that they are not going to cost very much for the inhabited islands considering the amount of money that we have. However, we have come up with a plan to make islands island-proofed against future things that might go against them. Are you concerned about the costs of delivering the island proofing? Who is going to meet that cost? Or are you relatively relaxed that that is all going to come as part of the bill from central government? Fergus Ewing, do you want to… I think that we are very much concerned about what it is. If there is some good information about a meaningful plan that addresses the issues that islanders want to see addressed, it must have resource implications. Even the island constituents have concerns about where those resources come from and would it impact on other aspects of our communities? I think that we are probably more relaxed with the high-level principles of the bill because it fits within what we have been trying to do in North Ayrshire in terms of locality planning. If the bill hadn't been here, we would have been on that journey anyway, to be frank, but the devil will be in the detail going forward. It goes back to Jamie's point. We are all here to do the very best that we can for all of our residents, whether they live in an island or not. Mainly, the issues around the work that we do with our island communities are resource-based. There is no doubt about it. That is to do with proportionality, access to specialist services, which are expensive, and things that cost money. In order for us to make the greatest difference to our island communities, resources have to be considered. Okay, that is probably a good place to draw this to a close. Audrey, I would like to thank you for coming at Andrea Amphogus and giving evidence to us on this very important bill. I am now going to briefly suspend the meeting to allow witnesses to change. Thank you again for your time. I would like to now resume our meeting on agenda item 2, which is evidence on the island Scotland Bill. I would like to welcome our second panel, Stuart Black, from the director of development and strategic transportation from the Highland Council. Norma MacDonald, convener and Malcolm Burr, chief executive from the Western Isles. Thank you very much for coming. The first question will be led off by John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I am going to kick off with the same series of questions that I did last time with the previous panel. I know that two of you were present, and that is whether the overall intent of the bill matches expectations. It does. You will have noted in our submission that there are a few points of detail, particularly on island proofing, which we would like to see clarified to say the least. In general, this is an enabling bill. This forms part, we would say, of the community empowerment agenda. It indeed forms part of the review of local governance agenda, but most importantly, it is a key element of the campaign that, with Orkney and Shetland, our islands are future, which is about ensuring that the islands have as level a playing field as possible, that structural disadvantage is diminished and that, at this time of change in public sector delivery and indeed in public sector structures, the islands have their place and have a clear place at the table that our needs are recognised and that there are the appropriate administrative and political mechanisms in place to make sure that that comes about. I think that, from Highland Council's point of view, our islands are a smaller part of the total population. They are about 5 per cent or thereby of the total population of Highland, but they are very important to us, particularly in the promotion of Gaelic language and culture. We feel that the bill does meet the general needs. We have specific issues around things such as availability of broadband and some of the services that we would like to see made some sort of universal service obligation type approach. That means that we get those things on our island communities as well, and they are not the last in line to get some of the upgrades in technology. Another point that we make is around some of our peninsulas. Places such as Noidart and Skoreg do not actually have road connections. They are reliant on ferry connections as well. They are obviously not islands, but we do have remote peninsulas that are also significant from a remoteness and geographic point of view. John, do you want to come and develop that? Yes, indeed. Is your expectation that that will lead to greater empowerment for island communities? I know that we will pick up on issues that perhaps later colleagues showed about other areas, but with our islands communities, do you imagine that that will lead to greater empowerment? We absolutely believe that that will mean greater empowerment for island communities, and we are very strongly of the view that it is not about empowering our island local authorities, it is about us sending that out into communities. That is our starting point, that we are looking to have powers and the ability to make our own decisions on a whole series of issues that impact on us that do not impact on mainland authorities, and that we already have the tools at our disposal to be able to influence them in a positive way. We are not looking for equality with other mainland authorities or mainland areas. We know that that is not possible. What we want to do is to diminish the negative impact, and that is why island proofing is such an important part of the bill. It started off as initially that if agencies island proof their legislation and policies and the implementation of both of them, we would end up in a much better place and that we would not have to spend so much effort, time and money trying to retrofix unintended consequences of legislation and policies that have an adverse impact on our communities. We do not see that as a case of island authorities being empowered. We will look to empower our communities much more so than we are able to do at the moment, because we do not have the slivers at our disposal. John, do you want to— I acknowledge that it is a smaller percentage of the population. Do you see your island communities being empowered by that result of that? Within the island council, we are obviously a very large council. We cover 31 per cent of the landmass of Scotland, but we do have a series of local committees, and we have the Sky and Rase committee, which is quite a powerful voice for that community. Obviously, we have areas like the small isles as well, which is part of Lochaber. I think that a lot of this is around, as Norman has said, empowering the communities at the grass-roots, rather than just in the local authority. We have good examples of the island of egg, for example. It is a really good example of a community that has taken things into its own hand, helping to shape its own future from a very troubled past. We have good examples of where communities have been empowered and can bring forward developments. I think that the spirit of this bill is to see more of that activity. That is about the difference between the three island authorities and the mainland authorities who have inhabited islands. Are the authorities in the mainland authority centre in this process later in the day? Is that a problem, or are you happy with the level of engagement? Do you feel fully engaged now? That is right. We did come a bit late to the party, but we feel very engaged now. We have been taking part in the discussions through the island's grouping, chaired by Mr Yousif, and we have been party to discussions recently that we were across with the council leader in Lewis. We do feel part of it. It is obviously slightly different having a smaller proportion of population on islands, but, as I mentioned, there are some remote geographies in the highland area that have island-like characteristics, so it is important that council-like areas are involved. John, can I bring Gail in, because I know that this is an area that she has a question in before I go to Rhaidus a Gail? My question is just to follow on from what Stuart Black said just now. In the Highland Council evidence on page 134, you touch on ensuring that there is more general rural proofing of policies and legislation for not just island communities. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the island proofing will have knock-on effects, positive effects, for more rural and remote communities on the mainland? Certainly, it would be good to see that. I think that many communities are facing challenges, particularly in the remote and rural communities, and those are not necessarily addressed through a particular piece of legislation. However, if the spirit of the bill is to look at remote areas and consider that they need additional protection, I think that that is positive for the wider highland area. I am not sure that I can comment on that. My interpretation would be that it is an island bill, but I understand your sentiments. Rhaiddo, can I bring you in on that, please? Yes. Can I ask about the challenges faced by islands authorities and authorities with islands, making the distinction between the two? Are they different from the expectation of the islands, depending on the make-up of the authority that they are part of? Who would like to… Malcolm, is that you? I suppose that they are inevitably different just because of the political structures. Our island councils that I like to believe, and I have worked in two of them, are quite different in that respect. As well as being providers of statutory services, there is an expectation of what I would call community leadership. I do not pretend for one moment that everybody loves their local authority at every moment. However, there is an expectation that the council will act as external advocate for the area that the council will take on issues that are absolutely not within its statutory responsibility, such as ferries, such as air travel, such as health boards. There is very much that special role and it is a privilege, I think, to work in that environment. I could not say to what extent that applies in other areas, but I think that islands councils are quite distinctive. That is why we began the campaign as the three islands councils. However, it was always very much on the basis that anything that we achieved would be almost certainly of benefit to other islands, to councils with islands. I take Ms Ross's point on remote rural communities. The same principles I think apply and the same benefits and achievements can equally be applied to many other areas of rural Scotland. I do not think that it is too much about expectations, but I think that it is about fairness. There are disadvantages that island communities have, for example additional charges that are put on deliveries from companies that mail order and things like that. I think that it is about fairness and that it is about having a reasonable level playing field. People on islands expect that transport costs are going to be higher, but they do not expect to be penalised for it by the way that some companies do. I think that it is about fairness. I think that islands do have a special identity as well that is possibly different from some mainland communities, although in rural communities you have strong identities, so it is not always quite as black and white. However, I think that it is about fairness, equality of treatment and making sure that island communities have a voice. I think that they have felt for many years that they do not have a sufficient voice. Before I bring Norman in, I am sure that all the people across the islands have views about delivery charges, because it is not just people on islands who suffer from them. Norman, if I may, then I will go back to Rhoda. I think that the point that Ms Grant raised is very relevant. I think that there are great similarities between island authorities and island communities that are not part of mainland authorities and the ones that are part of mainland authorities. They very much have the same issues. We have the same issues even within our islands where people who are removed from what is perceived to be the centre of power, as it were. The massive population feels that they are worse off than those at the centre. The same would apply to local authorities that have islands as part of their authority. The same feelings exist there. It is about reducing those inequalities. It is about having a degree of fairness. It is about making particularly public agencies think hard before they implement legislation and policies that are going to exacerbate those inequalities. I think that that is the fundamental plank of the legislation. It is one of the key things that people are looking for. I think that our communities are beginning to understand that, and they are beginning to understand that that is important for them going forward. Does that make it easier for holy island authorities to implement the bill and make the aspirations of their communities? I suppose that the example that I would use is that, if you are a mainland authority with islands, if you look at things like decisions over the marine environment, it must be quite difficult to have your islands have that power as a local authority, but for you as a local authority not to have those powers over the rest of your area. Is there things like that that would make it easier for holy island authorities to implement and make the aspirations of the bill, or do you think that that will happen regardless? The burning part of the bill is in line with the devolution of the county state from the UK Government to the Scottish Government and, hopefully, down into communities as well. The two things that we believe go together in that respect. I do not think that that makes any difference whether it is a holy island authority or an authority that has islands that have a marine environment that they can make use of to support their community. I do not think that it makes a huge difference at all. I think that the same applies across the board, where there is the opportunity for small communities, remote communities in Peninsill, as Stuart mentioned earlier, for them to take greater control of the marine assets. As many of them have done through land reform with the land-based assets, and again, we have great confidence in the capacity of our communities right across the islands and islands to take control of land-based assets and manage them effectively for the benefit of their community. We see that as a natural progression of that, and I think that that is why those discussions came up as part of the islands, our islands for future, and the islands bill. Stuart nodded, so I was sort of assuming that he was in agreement and wasn't going to speak against what Norman had said. Just to confirm that communities that have coasts are very interested in what happens whether they are islands or not. I think that the spirit of the bill applies right across the authorities with islands as much as the island authorities. The coastal elements that Highland Council has certainly campaigned a lot around the crown estate and devolution of crown estate assets. I concur with what Norman had said. We spoke to the previous panel about our islands, our future, and how that was driven by the three main island authorities. The mainland authorities with islands came to the table later on. They gave us a variety of reasons for that. I suppose that what I am asking is what are your thoughts about why that was, and was there a disadvantage at coming to this later on in the process? Stuart, I am going to bring you in very briefly, if I may. I do not think that there was a particular disadvantage. I can understand why the island authorities worked together. I think that we have always had a strong partnership across islands and islands. Certainly, authorities like ourselves, our island butte North Ayrshire, our islands are, I guess, more important than their population size to our local authorities, so they certainly punch above their weight. I do not think that it is a disadvantage, but I think that we can help with some areas of activity around some of the lobbying. City region deals and island deals, for example, have similar aspirations, so we have tried to assist there. Although we are a bit late to the party, I think that we are very much playing a role in it. Mr Niles is one of the forerunters in the process with the other island authorities. Does the bill meet your aspirations when you set out on our islands, our future? I do not know who is going to answer that, Malcolm. Can I ask you to keep it as brief on that one as possible, please? From a chief executive perspective, it is a very important part of the set of aspirations that the campaign has set out to achieve. There are other elements to that. One is, we hope, for an island deal with UK and Scottish Governments. There are other adjustments that have been made to how business is done to accommodate islands, but that is a very important part of it. In terms of island proofing and the national islands plan, those were key points that we wish to see enacted in legislation, and hopefully they will be. That probably leads us neatly on to the next section, which will be led by Jamie. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Can I just touch on something that was said in the last few questions? Apologies, it was either Malcolm or Norman, who said it, but the bill will empower island communities, not island authorities. Was it yourself that said that? Can I probe a little bit further on that? I am intrigued by that phrase. How does the bill in its current form enable island communities in terms of the technicality of the bill? How does it physically enable island communities? I think that, as was mentioned in the session earlier, there are a number of things that we would like to see on the face of the bill that are of key importance to island communities in particular in relation to connectivity. Those are some of the things that we would want to see there, both in terms of digital connectivity and transport connectivity. Those are two fundamental things for island communities, but there are also issues that we recognise for peninsulas that are dependent on similar connections to central population and services. There are a number of things that we would like to see on the face of the bill, but we recognise that the bill is a permissive bill, and we would expect within the plan and guidance that goes with the bill that there will be significant discussion about the specifics. One of the reasons why we are comfortable with that is that, as has been said many times, one size does not fit all. Even within our island's authority, one size does not fit all. It is very difficult to be prescriptive on the face of the bill about some of the issues other than the principles. We expect and we are more than optimistic that that dialogue will happen as the process goes on. At the moment, the bill only states that the minister must produce a national island's plan and present that to Parliament. Is it your view that the bill itself should be more prescriptive? In other words, it should dictate some elements of what should be in that plan that is currently not in the bill. Malcolm, I will come to you and then I will come to Stuart if I may. We see the plan as absolutely critical because it should put the meat on the bones, as it were. The reason why we have not stated in our response that it should be prescriptive is that we hope that the plan will be there for all time. It will obviously change from time to time, we hope, and that is an important qualification that we would like to insert, that it will be a national plan fully consulted with and negotiated with the island's authorities and other local authorities and communities. However, it is essential that the plan be clear, that it be outcome-focused, that it be proportionate, because that would recognise that some islands and islands areas and councils with islands may or may not wish to take advantage of all aspects of certain policy areas. They may want variation, and the plan allows for that. One of the models that we looked at just for the committee's information was the national Gaelic plan, which has a certain proportionality among areas, but it sets out very clearly what is expected in implementing the Gaelic Language Act. That is one of the models that we looked at. However, in the immediate term, we would expect to see a great deal in the plan about connectivity, about public service reform, and about transport, to name just three. However, the plan is critical. It provides the substance behind the enabling provisions of this bill. Stuart, do you want to come in on that? Yes, just in terms of the Highland Council view, certainly the importance of the island's plan will be significant. I think that there have been issues around tourism, for example this year, where we have seen significant growth in tourism. We want to see that continue. We want to be able to maintain a strong and healthy economy in our island communities. A strong focus on the economy within the island's plan would be welcome. As has been mentioned, the guidance that comes with the bill is also really going to be where the detail is, and that will put the meat on the bones of the legislation. Generally, we welcome it as a piece of permissive legislation, but it is really depending on what happens next. The plan also should be measurable so that we can tell how well things are progressing. If a vague plan does not have targets, we will not really be able to measure how successful it is. We would like to see some targets in it that public bodies and others can be held to account if those are not met. My worry is that there is a lot of hope and expectation in what you are saying. The plan will address things that your hope will be in the plan and outcomes and objectives that your hope will be in the plan. However, there is absolutely no mandatory duty to have any of those in the plan as it currently stands in the bill. It just says that the minister should produce a plan. That leads on to, I guess, a final question in the sense that who should the minister consult to create that plan. Again, it is quite loose in the wording in the current draft of the bill. It says that the minister must consult such persons as they consider representing the interests of island communities. Again, it is quite open and some criticism has been that it does not put any statutory duty on the minister to consult islanders themselves or any specific groups within the island communities. Do you have any views on that? Norman, you would like to come in on that. I think that in terms of the comments that it is about hope and expectation, I think that it is about a very clear belief based on quite strong messaging from our own communities and from the wider community about the potential for communities to change the way we as local authorities go about our business and Government generally goes about business in respect of island communities. I think that it is a growing belief. We have examples as we mentioned earlier in terms of the land reform legislation and the community empowerment legislation that gives communities irrespective of the island's bill. It gives power into communities for them to be able to have a greater influence over the things that impact on their lives, either adversely or positively. There is an expectation as part of the process, and that will be co-production, as has been the case to date with the bill. It started off with three island authorities presenting a paper to the Convention of the Islands, and all the local authorities in the Islands strongly supported the way in which it was going to be taken forward. Since then, we have had nothing but positive engagement with our own communities and with communities elsewhere in the islands and with Government as well. It is more an expectation for us at this stage, but there are things that we would want to see absolutely nailed down either on the face of the bill or in the plan and the guidance that goes with it. Before I bring anyone else in, I know that the deputy convener has got some questions on consultation, but there is quite a lot of expectation here. I would like to bring Gail Ross in, if I may please. Jamie Tuddon, who should be consulted, and we heard from the previous panel that obviously the authorities and community councils, but all the way down to individuals in the community, is really important that they all have a voice. I just want to ask about the timescale. The Scottish Government has said that the island plan would be laid before Parliament a year after the act came into force. Do you think that that is realistic? It also said that there should be a new island's plan every five years. Can you comment on that as well, please? I am going to bring Malcolm in and then Stuart in, and I think that that will give us the balance hopefully. Malcolm? Thank you, convener. We would like to see a specific provision, obviously, for consultation with the islands councils as the elected representatives of those areas, but also with those bodies—I am trying to draft legislation here, as I speak—represent islands and groups of islands. I am thinking particularly in our area of the community land trusts, which are elected, particularly about community councils, which are often elected—not always, but in some cases following competitive election—and the community development companies, which again have an open membership under elected by the communities in which they operate. I think that there should be a statutory provision requiring consultation with all of those bodies. On the timing point, we in the western isles certainly feel that a year is about right because we have been preparing for this. We like to think for a long time and we have lots to put in an island's plan if an invitation were extended to us tomorrow to draw one up. I would not say that I am ambitious, but I think that it is reasonable. It is a tight timescale to allow the relevant consultation, but it is reasonable, and we would support that. As regards the length of the plan, I think that that is very much in the eye of the beholder. I think that the first one should perhaps stretch beyond the lifetime of this Parliament and then perhaps be on a five-yearly basis. We hold particularly strong views on that point, except that it should be for a reasonable length of time. In terms of consultation, I think that acts such as the Community Empowerment Act set the sign for local consultation. Achieving it will be challenging. It will have to use internet and other types of consultation. Getting around all the islands would be difficult, but modern technology enables that to happen. In terms of setting a timescale of one year after the act, as Malcolm has mentioned, there is quite a bit of local work in places such as Skye and Razzie. The Highland Council has local priorities, so they would fit into a plan like that. Reviewing every five years, I am responsible for planning within the Highland Council, five years can go quickly. Importantly, you should review things in the middle to see how you are getting on with progress. I do not think that it is right that you have a plan and that you only look at it after five years. Things can happen very quickly in economic developments and around decision making, so I think that it would be important to have a review process during the course of a five years so that it is not a done and dusted document and then something that is looked at five years down the line. Some sort of review and the progress during the course of the plan would be important as well. I will probably leave that there and move on to the next bit, which, sorry, my kids here. I think that we are all concerned to make sure that this does not become a tick box exercise, so really my question is focused on, could you give me an example of an initiative from any of those 60 public bodies that are mentioned in the bill, which has been island proofed in the past? What was it? How was it done and what did it cost? You may want to gather your thoughts. Malcolm, do you have an example or Norman? Perhaps start off with the so-called bedroom tax, which came in very quickly, and there was the usual statutory consultation, but it had such an effect on the islands in which there was this very little one-bedroom accommodation to which prospective tenants could move, even if they were able to. It was such that we had to seek and were granted a derogation. That, I think, is a classic example. Had there been a discussion and an engagement with our area, we would have said that we appreciate, of course, the aims of the legislation and the will of Parliament, but that cannot be delivered practically in our areas. That is the example that comes most quickly to mind. Is that island proofed? Absolutely. My question was really, is there something that has been island proofed in the past? What was it? How much did it cost? I am thinking prospectively, I suppose, looking that this is not exactly in point, but I think that it is relevant, is the forthcoming review of local governance. We were pleased to note in the programme for government a reference to island authorities which want to take forward a single public service delivery model that will be supported by Scottish government in so doing, obviously, with a number of caveats. I think that that is saying public service reform is with us.  Perhaps government is preparing for that, or at least allowing the possibility of other models. That is the kind of thing that we are talking about here. I think that Mr Rumbles has asked of an example, and I am afraid that I cannot, so I will have to leave it at that. I cannot think of one where island proofing has been used in the past. Malcolm was talking about the future as well, which illustrates the point about the importance of the need for island proofing. Mike, do you want to develop that? It is interesting that everybody is talking about island proofing. Nobody seems to know how it is being to be done and what the cost would be, so that is an interesting question. Could I move on to another question? I am very interested in the West Nihons written submission. You say that there is no enforcement provisions listed either in relation to a decision by any of these public bodies not to conduct an impact assessment for this purpose. You are raising the issue of—I am trying to get to the nitty-gritty about this—what is island proofing. If you are asking those 60 bodies to do island proofing, I am not sure what it is. The cost is involved, and you are saying in your evidence that there is no enforcement provisions to ensure that those 60 bodies do that. Those are perhaps convenient of the improvements that we would like to see in the bill, but there is provision in the bill that an assessment must have a description of the likely significant different effect, and then an assessment. There is a two-stage process there that a Government or an authority or an agency must first describe what they are doing and then assess it. That is a very good start. Our issue with that is that assessment, of course—the way that the bill is written at the moment—is solely in the opinion of the authority, which we think leaves a lack of objectivity. The assessment of significance is likewise entirely with the review of authority. With the review of authority, we think that, of course, the best people to assess significance are those living and representing island communities, and we would wish to be involved in that process. That should be co-produced. You asked about cost, though, and I am sorry that I did not address that. A lot of this work we see, frankly, as part of our day job as a Government. We are an arm of Government and local Government, and we see that as part of our work with UK Government, with Scottish Government and with the agencies that will have to set up administrative means of working with us to talk about forthcoming legislation, policy and strategy. It is hard to say what the cost will be. We would willingly do that tomorrow. I see it as part of core business of any body that calls itself Government. However, the two points that I have made about the subjectivity of the need for an assessment and the assessment of significance are key points for us, but there is the basis there in the bill of a process. Just before I bring in Norman, I can understand that the assessment goes ahead and the assessment says that it does not island-proof the decision. To island-proof the decision is going to cost money, because decisions to island-proof or do anything will have a financial effect. I am just trying to understand where communities think that money will be coming from. Will it be coming from local authorities or Government, and how are you going to deal with that? Norman, maybe that is an add-on to the answer that you were going to give, but can I bring you in here? In relation to the question that was asked by Mr Rumbles, this is key to making sure that this is not a tick-box exercise. It is absolutely key that it is clear, and it is not for the authority to decide whether it is relevant to island-proof or not. It is very much part of our day job, but we would rather, as local authorities and communities, be having that conversation with agencies before the policy is introduced and before the legislation is introduced, if it were to be Government. We would want to have that discussion. It would save money because it cost bold money to retrofix the issue that Malcolm raised in relation to the bedroom tax, which was a totally unintended consequence of legislation that, in other places, was quite relevant for some folk. That is where the work gets done. It is part of the day job, but we would rather be doing that the day before the decisions are taken, rather than trying to persuade people to change it afterwards. We would want to see the bill strengthened in that respect. It does not change it fundamentally because the provisions are there, but it is more specific. We believe that it would send out a clear message to those with whom we are engaging that there is an honos for them to take it seriously. I think that that addresses the point. To dwell on the finance side before I bring Stuart in, who is going to pay for the island briefing? I believe that there may, in some instances, be an additional cost to do that, but I think that that cost would be much less than trying to fix it afterwards. Again, that would be part of the discussion that would take place. It is easier to get things right before you have to spend a lot of time and energy trying to change things. It is easier to do it at that stage than to do it retrospectively. We do not see that as a huge issue, but that is something that would have to be discussed as part of the process. If it was something that was ridiculous in terms of a horrendous cost, we would have to be reasonable about that, but that would be the form of the discussion and the impact assessment that would be made. Clearly, it is not a blank check that is going to be offered up by anybody in relation to that. I am going to bring Stuart in, and then I am going to bring... I and out. A small one providing a short answer. Very quickly. Evidence before was that islanders need to be consulted to make sure that it is not a tick box exercise, but in addition or would it be sufficient for the council, the island councils, to be consulted about this before it turns into it, to avoid it being a tick box exercise on an assessment by those 60 bodies? We would actually speak to the communities that are most likely to be affected by it, and that can be a community of geography or it could be a community of interests in terms of a whole range of services that we provide, but we would not be doing that without consulting with the community. Absolutely not, but I think that local authorities are one vehicle through which that can be done or through the IJBs or whatever the relevant bodies is, but what is important is that agencies do not feel that they can shy away from the responsibility. In our submission, we refer to equality impact assessments, where there is a screening process, first of all, to determine whether a full impact assessment is undertaken, and we think that process makes sense. There will be some areas where there will be a requirement for a full impact assessment, but not everywhere, and on impact assessments, it can be about mitigation as well. There could be financial impacts, but there also are things that could be done to reduce the potential impact of a policy, so we feel that a two-stage process will be beneficial, and that way the public bodies will be able to show that they have looked at this issue and if it requires a full impact assessment, they will do one, and that mirrors environmental legislation and equalities legislation, so that is a potential way forward. John, can I bring you in unless you feel the old question has been asked? We have touched on some of the things that I was going to ask, but on the question of an example of what could be island proofed, the one that comes to my mind is ferries. We were on mull, which I realise none of you represent, but I think that, for example, the community on mull did not feel that they had been consulted about the new ferry timetables. Clearly, there is immediately attention, because somebody has to decide where all the ferries are going and every island cannot have exactly what it wants, but I wonder if that might be the kind of example where—I do not know, and I do not want to go into all the detail—potentially a local community could be a bit more involved in the future than it has been in the past, when decisions are being made. Would that be a kind of example? That example is quite relevant to the principle that communities and those who represent them should be involved at as early as possible a stage, and that requirement should be there in statute to be involved in decisions that affect them. On the point of cost, incidentally, part of that debate should be whether the same outcome can be achieved in an island by a different means, which may well be cost-neutral or less cost-demanding, and that would be a key part of that kind of discussion. The issue has to be involvement in the decision-making process and in the formation of policy. We are living in an age of significant change to public services, significant change to public service delivery, significant financial constraints, I would suggest, and regional planning and delivery of services. Those are of critical importance to islands, and it is essential that the statutory element is there to ensure the involvement of communities and those who represent them in those decisions. On my other point, following on a bit from that, we have already discussed what should be in the bill and what should be in the island's plan. Another aspect to that is ministerial guidance, how much should be in the ministerial guidance. Do I have any comments or thoughts about what should be in there, how much should be in there in the ministerial guidance, or should we be trying to minimise that and have everything laid down elsewhere? I am happy to start that discussion. The ministerial guidance is very important, because that sets out the processes. This is a bill about policy formation and process, as well as about the substantive elements. It is essential that the island's proofing elements are set out in sufficient detail about who will be consulted in what form, at what level, what will the sign-off be, what will the discussion be with islands councils and islands communities, and what the review process will be should an authority say, we do not see the need for an impact assessment here and we do not think that it will have a significant effect. There is a radically different view in Lerwick or Kirkwall or Stornoway. There needs to be a process of review. I am not talking about judicial review, that would be an absolutely last resort, but I am talking about a process, which can be, where each party can say, this has been done fairly and reasonably, we will not always agree with the outcome, but we are clear that a process has been followed, which takes into account relevant matters. The guidance is absolutely essential to that. On the consulting point, presumably you would not want to have your hands totally tied by central government as to who you consult on every issue that you would hope, as an island's authority, that on different issues you would perhaps slightly consult different people. Exactly. As Norman has said, we will consult at times internally geographic communities at times communities of interest, dependent on the subject matter. Do you want to come in on that? I just concur with Malcolm on the importance of the guidance, because that really sets out what has to be done and the way it should be done, so nothing further to add on that. The next question is raised, and I am going to apologise that this is going to go one way only, in the sense that there is an evidence session next week, which I believe the Western Isles will have input into. Rodi, your question. What he is trying to say is that the Western Isles shouldn't be answering this question, because you will have adequate time next week. Therefore, can I ask Stuart Black if Highland authority is happy with the Western Isles having the same protections as Orkney and Shetland with regard to their boundary for elections? Herry in mind that the panel member is sitting to your left, I am sure that you will answer carefully. Yes. Interestingly, we do support that. We also have a concern over, and this was raised at the council in debate, around the size of Highland constituencies. We do feel that that is a significant issue as well. We are very keen and supportive of Western Isles, but we also have a concern over the size of parliamentary constituencies within the Highland council area, and any potential reduction, because they are among the biggest of any constituencies anywhere in Europe, is my understanding. I am afraid that that is not covered by the island spell, and I do not think that we can stretch it that far. I am going to move on to the next section, which is to Richard. I agree with you that the boundary commission to my mind should look at all these things. Anyway, in 2004, there was a change to the multi-member wards. Actually, just before the last election, the boundary commission in my area put the number of councillors up by seven, from 70 to 77, against our recommendation. Only to Highland council again, because Western Isles will get their chance next week. Have you any thoughts about the practical issues regarding the current three, four member wards and what impact they have switched into? I want to remember what it would be for local islands. Do you think that this proposal would mean that the overall number of councillors in a local authority area should go up? How would that work? Should candidates who stand for island constituencies or wards stay in the island? That was again discussed at the council debate on the islands bill. In terms of the representation within the island council, Sky and Razzie is a ward, and that has four members from it, so they are representing the island community there. The issue is probably more pertinent to the small isles, where that is in the Coulin-Malleg ward. I think that we were of the view that there should be a minimum threshold, because those are very small populations on those islands, so there is nothing really further to add than that. We are fortunate that Sky and Razzie, that island grouping, have the four member ward, and it is only really an issue for Coulin-Malleg. I think that the members there are very cognisant of the island issues, the small isles in particular, so we are less deterministic, I guess, than some other responses. Do you think that local authorities should be consulted by the Government and or the Boundary Commission in relation to putting in a number of councillors in particular wards? I do not know if you have area committees. Do you think that the same as I asked the last panel, do you think that an area committee should be totally devolved to islands? We do have an area committee for Sky and Razzie, which you mentioned earlier, and in the case of the small isles, they are in with the Lucabre area committee. I think that that does ensure good representation. They are also able to bring those issues to the wider Highland Council, so I do not think that it is so much of an issue. Of course, the islanders on the small isles and on the egg, they may feel differently, but we need to consult with them, and I think that that is back to your point about the need for consultation with these communities. Can you remind me how many councillors you have in Highland? There are 74 councillors in Highland. Right, so you should go up the same as... We have had a reduction, actually. It was 80 before. Oh, okay. That's amazing, but anyway, thank you. I'm glad we're not going to develop that debate here, and I'm going to ask Peter Chapman to lead the next section. Hello, panel. My question is about provision in the bill and marine development. You know that it provides a regulation making power to the Scottish ministers to establish a marine licensing scheme. My question is, do you agree with the regulation making power introduced in the bill, and how do you feel it could be used in practice? Good luck, Stuart. Do you like to have off on that? Yes, I think that the provision for the marine licensing scheme is welcomed by the council. We've sought to increase our influence over the marine environment around the coast of Highlands and around the coast of our island communities, so it is welcome, but echoing the points that were made in the previous discussion around the resourcing of it, that could be particularly difficult. However, we do want to have greater control and greater say. I think that communities in the past have been frustrated by the lack of ability to influence developments around the coastal area, so that is something that we are keen to see. Have you got an idea of how you can see it working in practice? I think that the devil will be in the detail, but there are frustrations that I know from the past around some of the licensing conditions and some of the rentals that were required from the Crown estate, for example, for developments around the Highland coast, and it was felt that there was very limited say from the local community on what was happening, and then the revenues were lost to the local area. We do want to see more control over that locally. I am going to bring Norman in there, if I may please. I think that I support what she was saying there, and it is entirely linked with the devolution of the Crown estate to the Scottish Government and, hopefully, down to communities as well. I am putting a significantly greater degree of control in their hands. As a local authority, historically, we knew nothing of marine developments, predominantly aquaculture developments, until we got the planning application for the shore-based development. By that time, all the consents and everything had been signed, done and dusted, and nobody in the community would know anything about it. It is about having a lever so that we have greater control within our communities, not necessarily within local authority, but within our communities of what happens within the marine environment, as our communities currently do with the land-based environment. I would imagine that it is a lot easier to manage the marine environment rather than the land-based environment that is cluttered with people in some areas. You get a lot more opposition and concerns raised by people than we do from anything that lives in the marine environment. I do not say that there is an insurmountable problem for communities to take greater control of that, and that a licensing regime is probably the best way to do that. Is there an expectation from all local authorities that they will take up this power? Is that the feeling that you have that you would want to get involved in this? I suspect that some councils will and some councils will not, to be honest. There is experience, of course, in the northern aisles of a works licensing regime that is already run by the local authority within its specific harbour area. That works very well indeed and quite harmoniously with other regulatory interests. I imagine very much that those authorities with significant coastal areas, which have strong views about the management of those areas, will want to take up the scheme. However, I imagine that not all authorities will. Does anyone have a different opinion to that? Peter, are you happy with that? We may move on. Just one other bit. Have you consulted with the local communities on this part of the bell at all and what kind of feedback have you had? Stewart, do you want to go with that? I think that the general Highland Council has a long history of looking at the Crown Estate and the issues relating to Crown Estate matters and marine matters. Generally, there is a very favourable response to that when consulting with communities. Malcolm O'Norman, who would like to come in? Just for our part, we have demands coming from our communities to take greater control down to community level of what happens in the marine environment. They are demanding of us to do something about it, and that is why the issue is being raised within the bill this week. It is one of very few specifics in that sense that is contained within the bill, and that we believe is for good reason. The final bit, John. Thanks, convener. We have already touched on finance as we have gone through, so just to sum up the question on the financial memorandum, are you comfortable with the financial memorandum? Do you think that the costs for administration are reasonable? Do you think that there should be any other costs that are included that are not there? We are very content with the financial memorandum. Obviously, there will be an element of trial if the bill is enacted and those processes are set up, but we have estimated that what is in the financial memorandum is reasonable. Does anyone want to say anything? Just to follow-up from John's question, I think that there needs to be a differential between the cost of the implementation of island proofing, for example, versus the cost of doing the island proofing itself. The administrative costs of doing it versus the actual realities of having to implement the consequences and the outcomes of that impact assessment. To give you an example, access to healthcare provision on the mainland, for example, people travelling from island communities to access special services on the mainland hospital. True island proofing would mean that provision of those services may have to be available on an island instead of on the mainland. The cost implication of that is tremendous. As a local authority, are you comfortable that you have adequate funding to back up the concept of island proofing? The bill does not really come with any additional resource or funding to councils at all. Malcom, do you want to come? Just to be clear, I was referring to the implementation of the bill, rather than the consequences. That is a process that we are already engaged in. Island councils benefit from special islands needs allowance. We have a level of GEE. I am far from saying that it is adequate for our needs, of course, but it does recognise some difference in the delivery of services in island communities. It is exactly that kind of negotiation, that kind of discussion on a formal basis that this bill is one of its key elements, is putting that on a formal and a constitutional basis. It is clear both for the agencies that work with us and the services that we provide. That is why I keep emphasising that it is part of our community empowerment local governance agenda. It does not stand apart from that. It is absolutely critical of how we deal with the future delivery of public services in our communities. Stuart, do you want to add anything, or do you feel that that has covered it? In terms of island councils, if there are additional costs and there are in delivering services on islands, and if rural proofing leads to higher impacts on the council overall, then clearly we are not funded to do that at the present time. It will be a question of members taking a view on where the priorities are. The point that Malcolm made about the additional costs of the activity that relates from island proofing is something that needs to be considered by public bodies. On an island's plan, for example, there would be an expectation, I feel, in the island communities that some resource would come from that to help to implement some of the ideas in those plans. It will have cost implications beyond the actual implementation of the legislation itself. I think that that is probably a good place to leave it, I think, at that stage. Norman Malcolm, Stuart, thank you very much for coming and giving evidence to the committee. We have got further evidence on the boundary commission relating to this next week, but thank you very much for your time. I am now going to move the meeting into private session. Thank you very much, and that closes the footage.