eak to amendment 167 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My amendment in this group 167 concerns the new section 97H, which sets out the matters in which ministers must be satisfied before consenting to a part 3A community right to buy. Subsection 1G of that section requires ministers to be satisfied that the community body has tried and failed to buy the land by other means than a right to buy. This is in recognition of the policy intention indicated by the minister in evidence at stage 2 that the part 3A right to buy should only be used as a last resort. My amendment 167 seeks to provide clarity to community bodies to help them understand what would constitute trying and failing to buy the land. They would be considered to have satisfied this requirement if they provide ministers with evidence in a prescribed form to demonstrate that they took certain actions to try and buy the land. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm afraid again that we can't support these amendments because on the grounds that we are concerned that they give even more powers to ministers through conferring an ability to decree what constitutes an effort to buy or sell land or indeed what constitutes a proposal for the land in question that is overly prescriptive. If there are genuine concerns about these issues, then I think it is not Scottish ministers who should determine them but some other organisation. Thank you, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In terms of amendments 165 and 167, I do not consider it necessary or desirable to provide in regulations what information a land owner should provide in connection with any proposals he may have for the land or what steps a community body should take or evidence they should provide when the community body tries to buy the land. It could be that prescribed actions may not be relevant or prescribed steps may not be possible in all circumstances and this could cause difficulties to community bodies or to land owners if they are unable to comply with certain prescribed requirements. The community body would be expected to provide all information and evidence it considers is necessary, appropriate or relevant relating to attempts it made to buy the land. It would then be for ministers to be satisfied that the community body has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that it had tried and failed to buy the land. Similarly, the land owner would be expected to provide all information and evidence they consider is necessary, appropriate or relevant relating to proposals that they have for the land. For those reasons, I urge Clodra Beamish to withdraw amendment 165 and Zidra Boyack to withdraw amendment 167. Many thanks in our call, Clodra Beamish, to wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with draw, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm not convinced by the minister's arguments in this particular case on the amendment and I've moved. Thank you. The question then is that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the voting amendment number 165 is yes, 40. No, 79. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 166 in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 160, and I ask Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Moved. The question then is that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. A 32nd division this time. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 166 is yes, 39. No, 79. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendments 82, 83, 84 and 85, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 82 to 85 on block. Please. Moved on block. Thank you. Can I now ask are there any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 82 to 85? No member does object. Therefore, the question is that amendments 82 to 85 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 86 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 66 and asked the minister to move formally. Please. Only moved. And I now call amendment 86A in the name of Sarah Boyack. Already debated with amendment 66 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. Not moved. Not moved. Therefore, I call amendment 86B in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 66 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 86C in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 66 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. Not moved. And call amendment 86D in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 66 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. Not moved. Yйna. ymhetnt nesaf â bBERK rheidain 86 ym repaired sut nesaf angen aldu'r rhaid nesaf всеys a rhaid ie mić unrhaid 87 o'n yr enhygfer os yn mynd i tower wedi ar percar monte rhaid ffragio rhaid seleff yn llawer nesaf angen allwm yr markpen hwnni nee rhaid Stri buspan nesaf angen hwnni amendment 167, in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 165 and asked Sarah Boyack to move or not move. Question then is that amendment 167 be agreed to or we all agreed? We are not agreed. This will be a 30-second division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment 167 is yes, 38, no, 78. There were no abstentions in the amendment, so we are not agreed to. Amendment 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 88 to 94 on block. I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 88 to 94. Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 88 to 94 are agreed to or we all agreed. That brings us to group 19, mediation in relation to rights under parts 23 and 38 of the 2003 act at a call amendment 95, in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, grouped with amendment 143. I ask the minister to move amendment 95 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Amendment 95 is introduced following the lodging of amendment grime day stage 2 the bill, which was agreed to and inserted provisions relating to ministers' facilitation of mediation in relation to parts 23 and the new part 3A of the Land Reform Scotland act 2003. Amendment 95 replaces those provisions with new mediation provisions that achieve the same policy intention. The new powers are for ministers upon a request by certain persons, including owners of land and community bodies, to take such steps as they consider appropriate for the purposes of arranging or facilitating the arrangement of mediation in relation to a proposed registration of an interest in land under part 2 or exercise of the right to buy under parts 23 and the new 3A. The new provisions clarify that the power of ministers to facilitate mediation includes the power to appoint a mediator and make payments to mediators either for payment of services or for reimbursement of expenses. Amendment 143 removes paragraph 25A of schedule 4 to the bill, which amendment 95 replaces. Many thanks, Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer, simply to speak in support of the minister's amendment 95 and stress the importance from our perspective of the mediation issues and the payment arrangements. Sorry, can I check if Graham Day was indicating that he wished to contribute? No, thank you. Can I ask the minister to wind up? I would like to thank, Presiding Officer, Graham Day for bringing forward amendments at stage 2 in mediation. Those amendments ensure that it can be used by all parties all relevant steps in the right to buy process. I would ask the members to support those amendments and I would like to also thank the support from Claudia Beamish. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Sorry, I've called that again. Are we all agreed? We are. Group 20, asset transfer request, appeals reviews, prohibition on disposal of land and a call amendment 96 in the name of the minister for local government and community empowerment this time. Group with other amendments shown on the groupings and I ask the minister to move amendment 96 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you and it's good to be back. The government amendments in this group fall into four sets. First, amendments 96 and 100 provide for a community transfer body to appeal to the Scottish ministers if they have been unable to conclude a contract with the relevant authority within a specified period after an asset transfer request has been agreed. At stage 2, the committee agreed an amendment from Cameron Buchanan, which I also supported to introduce an appeal in these circumstances. Those amendments seek to implement that intention more effectively. Rather than relying on the existing appeal process, which would return the process to an earlier stage, they set a new appeal specifically for this purpose. Amendments 97, 98 and 99 are to ensure that a relevant authority cannot sell or lease a property to someone else while an asset transfer request is in progress. Amendment 16 is to ensure that a community transfer body cannot make an offer in relation to an asset transfer request and, at the same time, appeal or seek a review in relation to a decision about a request. Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are technical amendments to clarify references to certain sections where they are applied and modified by other sections. That brings me to Cameron Buchanan's amendment. Cameron Buchanan's amendment would mean that, if a relevant authority declines to consider a repeated request, as it is entitled to do under section 61, that request would then become subject to appeal or review. That would make a nonsense of the whole section, which is important in order to give relevant authorities the scope to decline repeated or vexatious requests in limited circumstances and without the risk of further appeal. I would ask Cameron Buchanan not to move amendment 172, and I move amendment 96. I now ask Cameron Buchanan to speak to amendment 172 and the other amendments in the group, please. First of all, I agree with all the other amendments in that group, apart from amendment 172, which seeks to remove the word not from the subsection 3 of section 61 so that a refusal of an asset transfer request due to a similar previous request can be reviewed or appealed. Without a right of appeal or review, community transfer bodies could be excluded from participation on unfair basis. I would like to make it clear that I am not making any assumptions, but I am interested in only ensuring that the communities are protected from unfair exclusion. The ability to instantly refuse participation should therefore not be used unless it is very clear that it is a repeated request, which is a right of appeal or review will ensure that the relevant authorities adhere to this. On this basis, we also consider that amendments 17 and 18 raised concerns because they extend the Government's position that a refusal of an asset transfer request due to a similar previous request may not be appealed or reviewed. We think that a community transfer body should have a right of appeal under section 58 or a review under section 59 so that it ensures fair participation without allowing repeated challenges to the authorities' decision. Many thanks. Malcolm Chisholm. I certainly welcome those amendments. As the minister knows, there is great interest in my constituency in terms of the transfer of land. I still cannot see any reference to arms-length bodies or allios in the bill, so perhaps the minister could confirm that all of that will apply to allios, as well as local authorities. In relation to amendment 99, there is concern that notwithstanding the progress that there has been and the right of appeal, perhaps section 99 suggests that, if it has been advertised before the application has been made, the land could still be disposed of. I do have some concerns about amendment 99, although I may not totally understood it as well, but in general I certainly welcome those amendments. Many thanks. Can I now ask the minister to wind up, please? Thank you. To respond to Cameron Buchanan's point, which is the crux here, it is important that there is an appeals process, but any transfer request that has happened in the last two years would have been potentially subject to that appeals process the first time around. That is to stop an asset transfer request from happening, being refused, appealing, being refused and then being brought back and being able to trigger the appeals process for a second time. Where it has been through that process already, I think that it is important to then have a cooling off period of two years whereby persistent and repeated requests that may already, as I say, have been through the appeals process can be declined, so I would hope that he would withdraw. Many thanks. The question then is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 97, 98, 99, 13, 14, 15, 100 and 16, all in the name of the minister for local government community empowerment and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 97 to 99, 13 to 15 and 116 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 97 to 99, 13 to 15, 116? No. In which case the question is that amendments 97 to 99, 13 to 15, 116 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I will just check him on the right page. Now I call amendment 172 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 96 and to ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not to move. The amendment has been moved. Therefore, the question is that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will be a division and this is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 172 is yes, 47. No, 72. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, all in the name of the minister for local government community empowerment and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 17 to 20 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 17 to 20? Members do object. We will put these amendments individually. Question then is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 17 is yes, 101. No, 17. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Question then is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 18 is yes, 103. No, 16. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The question now is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The next question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 21, supporter involvement in football clubs. I call amendment 174, in the name of the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health, grouped with the other amendments shown in the groupings. I ask the Minister to move amendment 174 and to speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and at the outset, can I thank Alison Johnstone for her work on this issue and starting an important debate on fan involvement and ownership of football clubs? Football plays a huge part in the lives of thousands of people across every community in Scotland, so it is good to have this debate. I know that Scottish Football has experienced more than its fair share of challenges with many high-profile clubs, changing owners and experiencing financial challenges whilst this is in itself not unusual for a commercial organisation, given so many are firmly embedded in their local community. Given the emotional investment that supporters have in their club, there can be a disproportionate impact of a club where to be wound up and why therefore it is so important that long-term sustainability is at the centre of each club's decision making. That is why this Scottish Government believes that supporters should have a greater role in the life of their club. However, the significant amendments that were submitted to the community empowerment bill at stage 2 would see significant changes to how clubs would be required to operate in Scotland. They have already set out the Government's support for greater support and involvement, very supportive of the sentiment behind Alison Johnstone's stage 2 amendments. However, the Scottish Government has a number of concerns about those amendments, both in terms of how they could operate, but more importantly, the potential for unintended consequences. I am also concerned that there has not been as extensive consultation on those proposals to ensure that we capture the full range of views on that issue. Therefore, I have been in active discussions with all Opposition spokespersons on this to explain my reservations and concerns, but also, more importantly, to explore how best we can move forward and place on record my thanks to them, particularly Alison Johnstone, who initiated the amendments at stage 2. Although I believe that there is broad agreement here that we need to do more, it would be wrong to claim that we have the answer without consulting fully first. That is why I intend to launch a comprehensive consultation on the issue, and I shared a draft of the consultation with Opposition spokespersons last week and tabled a copy, especially yesterday, and brought it to the attention of all members through the Office of the Minister for Parliament to Business. Again, I thank Opposition spokespeople for their time in helping to formulate the draft consultation, as well as those supporters' organisations that my officials contacted to discuss the matter with too. I trust that the draft consultation demonstrates that the Government is open to the principle of bringing forward regulations that will protect supporters' rights, and I hope that sharing an early draft of that has helped members to understand the context of the Scottish Government amendments, which provide a framework for the introduction of a full range of options being consulted upon—namely, a right to buy, a right to bid, a right to govern, and a right to be involved. I note that Alison Johnstone has put forward a number of amendments to the Government's proposed amendments. In summary, although it may be felt that those amendments are reasonable for the specific system that we may create through the order-making power, I believe that those amendments prejudge the consultation, and that is why we will not be supporting them. Presiding Officer, I can confirm that the specific provisions of Alison Johnstone's amendments have influenced the draft consultation. I have referred to already that those are areas that we will seek to use to inform our regulations. I genuinely believe that it is important to have that consultation first before determining the specifics of the regulations. On that basis, we urge Alison Johnstone not to move those particular amendments. Presiding Officer, as, hopefully, members will be aware, our approach to developing this amendment in consultation has been guided by helpful cross-party engagement and without seeking to pre-empt the consultation. The chamber can be assured that it has my intent to continue to work with all members who may be interested in the issue. I look to your support in ensuring that whatever legislative solution is developed protects the rights of fans, is both workable and is not detrimental to Scottish football. On that basis, I move amendment 174 in my name. Many thanks. I now ask Alison Johnstone to move amendment 174A and speak to all of the amendments in the group. Please, Ms Johnstone. The bill Parliament is considering today is designed to give power to communities across Scotland. It is not the first word on that, nor will it be the final word, but it is an important step on this journey. As members will know from the point at which the proposals for the bill were published, I have sought to have football fans recognised as important communities and to have football clubs recognised as important community assets. I am pleased therefore to have persuaded the Scottish Government to include the powers to bring in a fans right to buy their clubs in their amendments, which, in a spirit of consensus, I will be supporting today, even though they will also delete my more detailed right to buy proposals which the local government and regeneration committee approved unanimously at stage 2. We know that a fans right to buy is popular. It was backed by more than 80 per cent of the Scottish fans and members of Scottish organisations who responded to our consultation earlier this year and more than 75 per cent of the Scottish public backed it when we polled last year. Some owners are against it, of course, just as some landowners opposed land reform, but other owners want a flexible and sustainable exit strategy, and those measures give them the reassurance that they need that their clubs won't fall into the hands of irresponsible owners in future. I support the proposal by Scottish ministers to conduct a further round of consultation on the issue, though I should say however that the draft text of the consultation that is circulated by ministers could be paraphrased as, here's a terrible idea, don't you think? I urge ministers to produce a more neutral and informative final document. With regard to the four amendments that I brought today, I apologise to Parliament that they had to be brought in extra time. But the timing of the Government's amendments left me no choice. They may seem modest refinements to the minister's proposals, but they cover four important issues that the Scottish Government's approach doesn't resolve. My amendments 1, 4, 7, b and 1, 7, 6, a provide important protections for both fans and owners. 1, 7, 4, b ensures that any fans group wishing to exercise a right to buy must be open to all supporters, affordable and democratic. Such protections can likely be introduced in regulations, but my amendment would put the protection on the bill itself. 1, 7, 6, 8 explicitly requires any fans' right to buy to be offset by an owner's right of appeal. That is an important safeguard for owners, and without a right to buy would be open to challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights. Again, the protection for current owners can be brought in under regulations, but they are important enough, in my view, to be on the face of the bill. 1, 7, 4, 8 concerns funding for fan buy-outs. In this instance, there is no provision in the Scottish Government's amendments that would permit grants or loans to support buy-outs. We know from trusts across the country, large and small, that this is frequently the hurdle to a fan buy-out, just as it has been with land reform. The foundation of Hart's fan bid would have gone nowhere without a loan from Anne Budge, and the amendment would allow ministers to play the same role if they are satisfied that there is a good business model and a public interest in supporting it. A few tens of thousands might make the difference between a wee club surviving and unfolding, with all the economic and social impacts that that has on our community. Finally, 1, 7, 4, 6 sets a timescale for bringing regulations. I would be grateful if the minister could say when he will decide whether he plans to use the power of Parliament as likely to give the Government today. That is not a request to prejudge the consultation. Ministers will be free at the end of this to retain, in my view, a failing status quo, but I think that those filling in the consultation over the summer should know when they can expect to hear back from the Government. With a clear commitment of that sort, I will not move amendment 1, 7, 4, 6, and finally, Presiding Officer, truly finally, I therefore urge members to vote for all the substantive amendments on this issue, both those in my name and those in the name of the minister, and I move amendment 1, 7, 4, 8. Thank you. Many thanks. I invite Nigel Dawn on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to speak to amendment 1, 8, 0 and other amendments in the group, please, Mr Dawn. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. At the meeting on the 9th of June, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the bill as amended at stage 2 and agreed to call on the Scottish Government to amend the bill at stage 3 in order that the powers in section 62 E, F, I, K and P were fully cast as powers to make subordinate legislation subject to the negative procedure and to clarify by defining the terms prescribed and prescribed, or by such other means as considered appropriate, who the powers were conferred upon and what form the subordinate legislation made in their exercise were intended to take. Now, in the event that the Government's stage 3 amendments did not cover this recommendation, the committee authorised the deputy convener and myself to table suitable amendments. As the government did not lodge such amendments, I have on behalf of the committee lodged amendments 180, 182, 186, 189 and 195 in order to give effect to the committee's recommendations. I appreciate the Scottish Government's movement of amendments, which actually remove the section to which my amendments relate and has provided for this new approach in order to issue a supporter ownership and supporter involvement in football clubs. I further appreciate that, from what we've heard so far, it seems like this new approach will prevail and therefore the issue to which these amendments respond will no longer be relevant. With that in mind, I should say that I do not expect to move these amendments when I'm invited to do so. Nonetheless, it is the role of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to provide a check on the delegated powers in the bill as amended at stage 2, not to presuppose what might happen at stage 3. It is with that principle in mind that we, as a committee, agreed to lodge these amendments, and it is with that principle in mind that we will continue to apply cross-crutiny to delegated powers in bills as amended, ensuring that those powers are appropriately drawn, justified and subject to sufficient levels of scrutiny. One of the most encouraging developments at stage 2 in the bill was the opportunity Alison Johnstone spotted to bring forward her proposals on the right for football supporters to buy their local club. It has been Labour Party policy for many years and I was absolutely delighted that the committee unanimously supported the amendments, despite the minister's obvious misgivings about the amendments themselves. Since that point, the Government made it clear that, although it accepted the principle of right to buy, it wished to go down a different route and to consult first with the football community before publishing secretary legislation. I was only being with some reluctance and solely in the interests of achieving consensual cross-party agreement on this, that my Labour colleagues and I, along with the Greens and the other parties in the chamber, have accepted that position, but we will be absolutely supporting the Government's amendments in this section today. The Government's amendments on that point however were brought forward quite late, hence the later manuscript amendments from Alison Johnstone. I do not believe that there is anything in the four amendments that Alison Johnstone has brought forward that anyone could object to, certainly not insisting on the right of appeal for owners, nor out of suggested on ensuring that supporters' organisations should be open and democratic. On timing, I think that what we are all looking for is some indication from the minister as to when the replacement regulations will be brought forward. On funding, that is not a request for public money to support professional football, because we would not support such a request. It is simply asking for the power for ministers to award grants, in fact to consult on their power to award grants, just as they might often exercise the power to award small grants to any local organisation to improve its capacity to make a difference in its local community. We would urge the Government and everyone to vote for all amendments in this section. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I first thank both the minister, Jamie Hepburn, and Alison Johnstone for their very helpful engagement prior to today's stage three in what is a complex part of the bill. I think that the vast majority of people that recognise the very good intentions and the attempts by Alison Johnstone to provide a community-based approach to football—in particular, I think that their attempts to provide football fans with the transparent, democratic and accountable processes to underpin the organisation of football in this country are laudable, as is the attempt to ensure that there is much better communication between football supporters and club management. Football, let's be honest, has not been in a very good place in recent years, with many supporters very disillusioned and very angry about the complete disconnect in many clubs between supporters, players and management in its various guises. That is not good for the game, and so it's absolutely right to address those concerns. That said, I think that there are very considerable complexities within this section of the bill, several of them in a legal context, and it's the view of the Scottish Conservatives that the amendments 174A, B and C and 176A, proposed by Alison Johnstone, have some unintended consequences, which could have serious effect in the long term for the sustainability of some clubs. Specifically, there remain some technical difficulties when it comes to defining football supporters and football clubs, and clearly the latter has a legal implication, mainly because it's very difficult to define specific assets and liabilities. The Scottish Government's deliberations over the right to influence, to govern, to bid and the right to buy also make clear the complexities and the need for further consultation on the likely legal implications. They also make clear the concerns about finance, particularly at a time of very considerable volatility within financial markets, and the model working group was very specific in advising that it was not the Scottish Government's responsibility to provide that financial support, and so clubs are rightly questioning in the future where they might turn to for that support. It's very fair to say that there are few supporters who want control over the day-to-day running of their club. What they do want is better communication, greater transparency and more accountability when it comes to the decision making. However, I think that that has to be in the context that we are absolutely 100 per cent sure of the legal implications of that, and that's why we will be supporting the Scottish Government's amendments and rejecting those put forward by Alison Johnstone. I can now ask the minister to wind up on amendment 174, please. Certainly, Presiding Officer. First of all, I say to Nigel Oedd, thank you for his amendments. Thank you for his remarks. I think that he's covered it. I appreciate why this Government didn't lodge the particular amendments that his committee called for, because of course we've taken a different approach. Let me say and I hope that this provides Alison Johnstone with a degree of reassurance this Government is committed to bringing forward legislation using regulations on this important issue. That's the first point that I would like to make. I do think that it is important that we consult fully on this issue before we bring forward that legislation. I think that there's been a talk, and Liz Smith rightly said about the unintended consequences. We want to make sure that there aren't any. That's why we want to have this full consultation. As I referred to earlier, Presiding Officer, I have provided the draft consultation document to all members. It was issued to Opposition sports persons last week. I would encourage all members to feed their views into this before it is launched imminently. We want to undertake this exercise as soon as possible. There is still time for members to feed into that process. In that regard, I can say to Alison George that it's certainly not this Government's intention to suggest that we're against the principles in the constitution. It's certainly not our intention to try and guide the outcome. If she has specific concerns, I would be very happy to speak to her about that particular issue. In relation to her specific manuscript amendments that she has brought forward, which Ken Macintosh referred to, let me be clear that I do not object in any way to the broad thrust of the principles that are contained within those amendments. I genuinely believe that it's important that we have a full consultation first before we determine the specifics of any mechanism that we bring forward. In that regard, in notwithstanding the concerns that have particularly been expressed about the consultation, there are a number of questions that relate directly to amendment 5 in the consultation and about the definition of assets in the context of a football club. Question 6 is about how to define what football supporter is and defining supporter groups. Question 8 is about raising the necessary funds. Question 10 is asking for views on the rights of appeal. The specifics of those amendments are something that we will take further evidence on before we determine the most appropriate way forward. In relation to the calls for a timeline, I appreciate the calls for a timeline in which we will use those amendments. It is important that we take the time to ensure that any regulations are effective and don't have any of those unintended consequences. I think that it's important that we don't come up with a substandard mechanism, so that may take a little time. I understand the desire for the Scottish Government to be clear on its use of the powers. We have set out an intention to consult. We are serious, as I said, at the outset about our use of those powers. We are just not clear yet how we will use those powers. The consultation will lead that, and some options that arise at that consultation may take longer than others. What I can say is that, depending on the complexity of the option that I identified through consultation, we would intend to bring forward the regulations between two and three years' time. Yes, of course. Alison Johnstone I wholeheartedly appreciate the minister's comments, particularly regarding the need to make sure that the consultation is thorough and appropriate, but you said that that may take a little time. Could you be perhaps a little more specific about when we... I am sorry that the intervener at the wrong time was literally just saying that our intention is within two to three years, and that is depending on the complexity of the particular regulation that we are bringing forward. We want to bring it forward as quickly as possible, so that is the broad timescale in which we intend operating. On that basis, I hope that members can support our approach. It is one that we think is open, participative and will, hopefully, allow us to have the best informed regulations at the end of the day. Let me conclude once more by thanking Alison Johnstone for raising this issue for working with me on this and urge the members to support our amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks and can I now ask Alison Johnstone to wind up on amendment 174A and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a very useful debate, and I would like in particular to thank Ken Macintosh and Tavish Scott for their support throughout the process, and I also welcome the minister's decision to accept that the powers to introduce a fan's right to buy should go into this bill. There has been wide-ranging support for the principle, and it will be interesting to know that even David Cameron, in response to a colleague at Westminster, noted that football clubs do sometimes find themselves in financial difficulty and that fan ownership would be a very positive move, so there is growing support for this. I think that this is a landmark proposal for Scottish football, which has seen club after club after club fall into administration or even disappear altogether, and fan ownership will not be for every club. We are talking about a mixed model with potential and flexibility, but during our consultation we were told that even those fans who are very happy with the way their clubs are run now want to know that this right is there for the future, just in case. They exist in culture of football where a small group of rich men can simply exclude all fans from decisions affecting their clubs has to end, and for too long fans have stood on the touchline, or perhaps even been sent to the stands while their club is sent to the wall, and nor is it good enough for fans just to be brought in to pick up the pieces after a Romanov or similar. Football is our national game, and football supporters, whether they want to buy their clubs or not, are its best custodians, and it really is time to put fans first. I would therefore encourage all members to vote for all amendments in this section, those in my name and those in the name of the minister, and I am therefore pressing amendment 174A. Thank you. Many thanks. In that case, the question is that amendment 174A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 174A is, yes, 40. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 174B, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask Alison Johnstone to move or not move. The question then is that amendment 174B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 174B is, yes, 39. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 174C, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask Alison Johnstone to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question then is that amendment 174C be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are not. Then there will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 174C is, yes, 40. No, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question now is that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendment 175, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Moved. Okay. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 176, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Thank you. I now call amendment 176A, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask Alison Johnstone to move or not to move. In that case, the question is that amendment 176A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 176A is, yes, 40. No, 76. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question then is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendments 177, 178, and 179, all in the name of the minister for sport, health, improvement and mental health, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 177 to 179 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 177 to 179? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 177 to 179 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 180, in the name of Nigel Don, on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which has already been debated with amendment 174. I ask Nigel Don to move or not to move. Not to move. I now call amendment 181, in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 174, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendment 182, in the name of Nigel Don, on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which has already been debated with amendment 174. I now ask Nigel Don to move or not to move. Not moved. I now call amendment 183, 184 and 185, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 183 to 185 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? In that case, the question is that amendments 183 to 185 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 186, in the name of Nigel Don, on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and already debated with amendment 187. I ask Nigel Don to move or not to move. Not moved. Not to moved. In that case, I now call amendment 187, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 174. I now ask the minister to move formally. Question is, that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 188, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 174. I now ask the minister to move formally. I now call amendment 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194, all in the name of the minister, in the name of Nigel Don, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194. I now call amendment 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 190 to 194 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 190 to 194 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 195, in the name of Nigel Don, in behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, already debated with amendment 174, and I ask Nigel Don to move or not move. Not moved. Therefore, we move to amendments 196, 197, 198 and 199, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 196 to 199 on block. Move, Presiding Officer. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 196 to 199? Since no member objects, the question then is that amendments 196 to 199 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 22, size of and request for particular sizes of allotments, et cetera, and I call amendment 101, in the name of the minister for environment, climate change and land reform, which is grouped with amendments 102, 103, 105, 107, 111, 112 and 122, and I ask the minister to move amendment 101 and speak to all amendments in the group, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Those amendments amend the provisions that relate to the size of an allotment. We all know that the issue of the size of allotments is of particular importance to a number of stakeholders, and it has been debated at length. It might therefore be helpful if, before addressing each amendment, I set out briefly some context. There are a number of ways in which people in Scotland are able to grow their own food. Those include community growing places and allotments, and it is important to distinguish carefully between those two. The most important distinction lies in the scale of operation, with allotments generally being of considerably greater size than community plots. The approach taken in the bill as amended will reflect those considerations, and, although there will be a large variety of sizes for allotments going forward, reflecting quite properly the different wishes of allotment holders and different practical considerations in each locality, the objective of the bill as amended is that allotments should be of around 250 square metres unless another size is agreed on a case-by-case basis between local authorities and individuals who are requesting an allotment. If we look at each of the amendments individually, amendment 105 provides that, when a person makes a request to lease an allotment, that person must, if the size of the allotment sought is less than 250 square metres, specify that smaller size in the request. Amendment 107 provides an entitlement to wait for an allotment of approximately 250 square metres until an allotment of that size is offered and also provides local authorities with flexibility to enable them to provide different sizes of allotments to meet the differing needs and wishes of their residents. Amendment 102 removes those amendments in relation to size of allotment agreed to at stage 2. Amendment 101 is a drafting change that is consequential to amendment 102. Amendment 103 removes the requirement for Scottish ministers to make regulations in connection with sizes of allotments. That is unnecessary now, given the amendments that are being brought forward on the size of allotments. I am conscious that those provisions may appear complex. For that reason, we will give particular attention to the guidance to be developed in this area, and we look forward to working very closely with our stakeholders on that. Amendments 111 and 112 make sure that when ministers decide whether to allow local authorities to dispose of an allotment site or renounce its lease, they must be satisfied not only that tenants will be offered a new allotment, but that it will be of the same or similar size. Amendment 122 allows the Scottish ministers to consent to a local authority resuming an allotment site or part of that site if the local authority has offered an affected tenant an allotment of the same or a similar area. The debate on allotment size has been long and at times difficult, and I am delighted that we have reached consensus with stakeholders on the way forward. I pay tribute to the collaborative work in recent weeks between the Scottish allotments and garden society, our local authorities and COSLA to achieve provisions that go as far as we can to meet the needs of all. In light of that consensus that is now secured around those amendments, I would urge you to support them, and I move the amendments to my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would agree that it is fair to say that it has taken some time and some effort, much effort indeed from the minister, from the members of the committee, and I think in particular from the Scottish Allotments and Garden Society to reach today's consensual position, but we will be supporting the Government amendments before us this afternoon. I would, however, welcome clarification on two points, if I may, on plot size. Ideally, we would have preferred to keep the definition of plot size in allotment in the bill. I think that it is still in section 70, the reference to 250 square metres. Can the minister confirm that, despite the removal of those amendments, it is still the Scottish Government's intention that the default size for allotments going forward will be 250 square metres unless someone wants a smaller plot? Secondly, on waiting lists, the introduction of the trigger points for waiting lists is to be deferred for three years to give local authorities the time to gear up and to plan for increasing provision. Can the minister confirm that people already on a local authority waiting list will have the length of time they have already waited, taken into account? Can the minister also confirm that it will not be acceptable for local authorities to simply sit around and do nothing about waiting lists for three years, but rather they will be expected to start preparing the ground for increased provision from the day of enactment? I would like to agree with amendments 101, 102, 103, 105 and 107 and speak about amendments 111, 112 and 122, which would instruct that the Scottish ministers may not consent to a change of use of an allotment site unless each tenant is offered an allotment of the same or similar size nearby. I do understand the motivation to protect allotment holders, but I am very concerned that these amendments would overly restrict local autonomy and be to the detriment of aspiring allotment holders in the long term. If power is truly to be devolved from the centre, local authorities should be able to decide whether changing use of an allotment site is in the local interest subject to protection from allotment holders. The existing provision that tenants should be offered another allotment nearby already does offer protection, whilst retaining the ability for local authorities to offer replacement allotments where they see fit. I rather fear that amendments 111, 112 and 122 would push the balance too far against autonomy so that local authorities would find it very difficult to change use of an allotment site, even if they considered it to be in the local interest. Furthermore, these amendments may be detrimental to allotment holders in the long term, as local authorities may be more reluctant to create new allotment sites in the knowledge that they may find it very difficult to change use in the future. This unfortunate consequence would see, I think, perhaps fewer allotment sites being created in the first place and therefore longer waiting lists for aspiring allotment holders. Many thanks. Can I now invite the minister to wind up, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I take on some of the points that have been raised by Ken Macintosh? If a person requests a particular size of allotment smaller than 250 square metres and is offered this size, then the request is treated as having been agreed, and that person's name will be removed from the waiting list. If that person is offered and accepts an alternative size, then the request is agreed and the person is taken off the waiting list. However, if that person does not take up the offer of the alternative size, the request is not agreed and the person is entitled to remain on the waiting list until the particular size that they have requested is offered. If a person wants an allotment of 250 square metres and has not requested a smaller size, the request is treated as agreed when an allotment of approximately 250 square metres is offered and the person is removed from the waiting list. If a person, lastly, has not requested an allotment smaller than 250 square metres and the person is offered and accepts an allotment other than one approximately 250 square metres in area, then the request is agreed and the person is also taken off the waiting list. However, should such a person be offered an allotment that is not approximately 250 square metres in area and does not take up the offer, the request is not agreed to and so the person remains on the waiting list. I hope that that gives you the clarification that you are looking for. The question then is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 23, sale of allotment produce. I call amendment 200 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, group with amendments 202, 203 and 213. I ask Cameron Buchanan to move amendment 200 and to speak to all of the other amendments in the group, please. Amendments 200, 203 and 213 would make it clear that surplus produce from allotments may be sold to make a profit because it is unclear why allotment users should be prevented from doing so. There would be an issue if large retailers were taking up allotments to supply their stores or local supermarkets, but I don't think that's what we're talking about. Small sales for relatively small amounts of money are not a cog in the corporate supply chain, but are instead a chance for waste to be avoided and compensation for hard work to be obtained where it's deserved. I think we're talking about members of the public who wish to enjoy the use of allotment space and cultivate vegetables, fruit, herbs or flowers. If it happens to be the case that they have excess product and wish to sell it, who are we to forbid it and how in any case can we define profit in this instance? Indeed, allotment users can take a certain pride in selling the produce that they have worked hard to cultivate. Any profits in inverted commerce gained from these sort of sales are not intended for a company's balance sheet but would rather be a small reward for hours of work put in this resulted in surplus produce. Furthermore, a provision that allows a sale of surplus produce other than the view to making a profit I think brings a question of definition as well as enforceability. How are the police meant to check whether the proceeds of each allotment sale are not for profit? I should also say that amendment 202 is included to clarify that allotment land would not be considered agricultural solely because someone makes a profit from selling surplus produce in order to alleviate potential concerns in this area. Thank you, Ken Macintosh. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was just to suggest to Cameron Buchanan that perhaps he might have misunderstood what was discussed and agreed in committee on this stage. Bill, as amended, currently stands, disqualifies commercial exploitation of allotments but it does not disallow people from small-scale remuneration of if they have an extra bag of potatoes or if they want to cover the costs of their heating. I think that his amendments are entirely unnecessary and miss the point of what has been agreed already in committee. Amendment 202, 203, 213 lodged by Mr Buchanan would result in surplus produce produced on allotments being able to be sold for profit. Additionally, it would remove the ability of local authorities to include provision prohibiting the sale of surplus produce in regulations about allotments. That could prevent local authorities from taking account of local factors in determining how surplus produce on allotments in its area might be sold. The Scottish Allotments and Garden Society have argued very strongly that the purpose of allotment is to support self-sufficiency in good food rather than be a means to provide additional income to allotment tenants. They consider that any proceeds from the sale of produce should only go back to the allotment association to be reinvested in that community of allotment holders. I recognise Mr Buchanan's desire to include allotment production as part of the wider food economy. However, this goes against the whole ethos of allotments to ensure that a family is self-sufficient in good food. As such, I would ask Mr Buchanan to withdraw amendment 200 and not move the other amendments in this group. Many thanks. I now invite Cameron Buchanan to wind up and to please indicate if you intend to press or withdraw. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I intend to press because I actually do think that there's got to be a definition of profit. It's not really commercial profit, as I was talking about. I'm talking about if somebody wants to sell goods and I think they'll be prevented from selling goods outside the allotment area or at a car boot sale or something else, and that should be, I think, not restricted. I think also we didn't clarify whether amendment 202 is included that allotment land would not be considered for agricultural use solely because someone makes a profit from selling surplus produce. I would like to press my amendment. Many thanks. In which case the question is that amendment 200 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 200 is yes, 16. No, 103. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 102 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 101. I ask the minister to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 102 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 202 in the name of Cameron Buchanan. Already debated with amendment 200. I ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not move. Thank you. The question then is that amendment 202 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. It will be 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 202 is yes, 15. No, 103. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 103 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 101. I ask the minister to move formally. Question then is that amendment 103 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 24, minor amendments, allotments. I call amendment 104 in the name of the minister for environment, climate change and land reform, and a group with the other amendments shown in the groupings. I ask the minister to move amendment 104 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. This is a group of minor amendments. Amendment 104 provides that a person may also make a request to sub-lease an allotment from a tenant of the authority in circumstances where the authority has leased the allotment site. Amendments 106, 126, 129 and 130 are intended to ensure the consultation requirements in relation to local authorities in part 7 of the bill are consistent with those applying elsewhere in the bill. Amendment 108 adjusts the drafting and in particular includes the words continuous period into the provision. That confirms the intention that a local authority is required to take reasonable steps to ensure that a person on the waiting list does not remain on the list for a continuous period of more than five years rather than the cumulative period of five years where the individual may come off and then go back on the waiting list for various reasons. We have also worked closely with the Scottish Gardens and Allotment Society local authorities and COSLA in reviewing this provision, and it has been collectively agreed that this particular provision will be commenced so that it takes effect three years after the rest of part 7 of the bill to allow local authorities greater time to prepare for this provision. Amendment 109 replaces subsection 3A, which currently requires local authorities when taking reasonable steps to provide allotments to have regard to the need to make those available reasonably close to the residents of persons on the waiting list. The requirement was introduced by Alex Rowley's amendment at stage 2. The amendment adjusts the drafting and in particular replaces the reference to need with desirability. That ensures that the spirit of the provision is maintained, although the amendment provides local authorities with some flexibility in meeting the requirement. Amendment 110 will provide that if a local authority asks its tenant of allotment site to grant a sublease of an unoccupied allotment on the allotment site to a person who has requested an allotment, the tenant must grant that sublease. Amendment 113 and 114, subsection 3A of section 77, was added to the bill at stage 2. It requires a local authority when detailing how it intends to increase the provision of allotment sites and community growing areas of land in its area to describe whether and how that will apply to communities that experience socioeconomic disadvantage. Those amendments are minor and technical, and they are intended to ensure that the provision achieves the intended effect. Amendment 115, following our commitment at stage 2, to consider requiring local authorities to publish a statement about fair rent in relation to allotments, amendment 115 will require local authorities to include in their annual allotments report details of the rent payable in respect of allotments in their area and details of how those rents are determined by reference to the requirement for local authority regulations to include a method of determining fair rent. Amendments 116 and 117, section 821, permits a local authority to incur expenditure for the purpose of promoting allotments in its area and providing training by or on behalf of the local authority to tenants and potential tenants about the use of allotments. Subsection 2 was added to the bill at stage 2, and it requires local authorities to take into account the desirability of exercising this power in relation to communities that experience socioeconomic disadvantage. Amendments 116 and 117 are technical to subsection 2 to ensure that the provision achieves its intended effect. Amendment 118, section 82A, allows requests to be made to local authority to use certain premises for meetings of allotments tenants and to do so without charge. It was mentioned during the stage 2 debate that in some areas the use of school buildings and the operation of other community buildings has been transferred to arms length external organisations or other bodies. We have looked into that situation and this amendment, amendment 118, expands the provision to include not only premises maintained directly by the local authority but also premises maintained and used in connection with services delegated by the local authority or maintained. His use is managed by another person in accordance with arrangements between that person and the local authority. I am confident that those descriptions cover the types of arrangements in place for schools and community buildings and will ensure that allotment associations can find suitable places to meet. Amendments 119, 120, 121 and 123 make minor amendments of section 84. Amendment 124 makes it clear that, where a local authority grants the lease of an allotment site and the tenant of an allotment supplicies and allotment from the local authority's tenants such as an allotment association, the tenant of the allotment must not assign the lease of the allotment unless the local authority that granted the lease of the allotment site agrees to the asset nation. Amendment 125 is a minor drafting amendment of section 89. Amendments 127 and 128 make minor amendments of section 90, which makes provision on compensation for deterioration in allotments caused by tenants. Amendment 132 is a minor drafting change to achieve greater consistency with the language of the Equality Act 2010. Lastly, amendments 134 and 145 are consequential amendments to ensure consistency between the provisions of the Local Government Scotland Act 1973 and the provisions of the bill. Could the minister confirm that, regarding amendments 106, 126, 129 and 130, that the intention remains that the Scottish ministers allow each willing local authority to contribute to the relevant consultation? Thank you. Since no one else is requested to speak, I will ask the minister to wind up, please. Amendment 106, 126, 129 and 130 are minor amendments that ensure that the consultation requirements in relation to local authorities in part 7 in the bill are consistent with those applying elsewhere in the bill. Amendment 106 relates to the consultation before making regulations about information that must be included in a request to lease an allotment. Amendment 126 relates to the consultation requirements before making regulations on compensation for disturbance. Amendment 129 relates to the consultation requirements before making regulations on compensation for deterioration of allotments. Amendment 130 relates consultation before making regulations in connection with the compensation payable to a tenant who suffers loss of any crop as a result of an allotment being resumed. My question was, will each local authority, because it does not specify how many local authorities have to be consulted, so does that mean that every local authority has to be consulted before the decision can be made? Each local authority will be consulted. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendments 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110, all in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 105 to 110 on block, please. Move them block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 105 to 110? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 105 to 110 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? I now call amendment 203, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 200. I ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not move. In which case, I call amendments 111 through to 124, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 111 to 124 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? Members do object. In which case, I will put the question on each amendment individually. Order, please. So, the question is that amendment 100 and 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 111 is yes, 104, no, 15. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Question now is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. This will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 112 is yes, 103, no, 15. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. In an effort to be helpful, we would be very happy if you had some process whereby you could move on block the rest of the amendments in this section. Thank you very much. In which case, the question is that amendments 113 to 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, thank you. I now call amendment 213, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 200, and to ask Cameron Buchanan to move or not move. In which case, the question is that amendment 213 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. Order, please. The result of the vote on amendment number 213 is yes, 15, no, 103, abstentions, 0. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendments 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 and 130, all in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 125 to 130 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? No member has objected. The question therefore is that amendments 125 to 130 are agreed. Are we agreed? We are. That brings us to group 25 guidance, and I call amendment 131, in the name of the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, group with amendment 22, and I ask the minister to move amendment 131 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Amendment 131, if agreed, will insert a new section into part 7 of the bill. First, this section will require local authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the Scottish ministers about the carrying out of functions by local authorities under part 7 of the bill. Secondly, this section will require the Scottish ministers before issuing the guidance to consult local authorities and any other persons appearing to them to have an interest. Those measures will help ensure continued good partnership working on allotments between ministers, local authorities and stakeholders. The guidance will aid the implementation of those sections of part 7 that may be technical in nature and something that we know will be welcomed by the Scottish allotments and garden society, as well as local authorities. Section 95 of the bill currently requires the Scottish ministers must publish any guidance issued by them in relation to part 2 or part 6 of the bill. Requirements for public authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish ministers were added to part 3, 5 and 7A of the bill at stage 2. In addition, amendment 131, if agreed, will require local authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish ministers about their functions under part 7 of the bill. Amendment 22, if agreed, will provide that the Scottish ministers must also publish any guidance that is relating to part 3, 5, 7 and 7A of the bill. I thank the minister. No other member has indicated the wish to speak. Do you wish to wind up? In which case the question is, that amendment 131 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 132, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 104. I ask the minister to move formally, please. The question is, that amendment 132 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 26, schemes for reduction and remission of rates. I call amendment 21, in the name of the minister, for local government and community empowerment, in a group on its own. I ask the minister to move and speak to the amendments, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The bill provides for a new power to allow councils to offer additional rates relief within their area. This amendment would clarify, wording agreed, following a stage 2 amendment by a member who shall remain nameless, replacing a potentially dubious comma after expenditure with and so that it is clear beyond doubt that the income referred to is the authorities income. I move amendment 21. Thank you. Since I have no indication that any other member wishes to speak, do I presume that you do not wish to wind up, minister? Thank you. The question then is, that amendment 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 22, 215 and 133, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister for local government and community empowerment to move amendments 22, 215 and 133 on block, please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 22, 215 and 133? No member objects. Therefore, the question is, that amendments 22, 215 and 133 are agreed, are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 27, minor amendments, community planning, asset transfer requests and a long title. I call amendment 23 in the name of the minister for local government and community empowerment. Group with amendments 24, 25 and 26. I ask the minister to move amendment 23 and speak to all of the other amendments in the group, please. Thank you. The Scottish courts service will be a relevant authority under the bill. The service changed its name to become the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service. Amendment 23 reflects that change. Amendment 24 makes two consequential changes on community planning. The First Amendment deals with consultation by an education authority before making certain changes to education provision in their area and requires them to include the local CPP and any other that they consider relevant. The second relates to joint inspection of children's services. They are currently defined with reference to the local government in Scotland Act 2003. In future, they will be defined with reference to the children and young people Scotland Act 2014. Amendments 25 and 26 alter the long title of the bill to include reference to provisions that were added at stage 2. I move amendment 23. Many thanks. Once again, no one else wishes to contribute. Do I presume minister that you do not wish to wind up? The question then is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendments 134 through to 144, 24, 145, 146, 25, 217 and 26, all in the name of ministers and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister for environment, climate change and land reform to move amendments 134 to 144, 24, 145, 146, 25, 217 and 26 on block? Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? Since no member has objected, the question then is that amendments 134 to 144, 24, 145, 146, 25, 217 and 26 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are and that ends consideration of amendments. I will allow members to move places, please. Can members leaving the chamber do so quietly because we are still in session? Order, please. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 13523 in the name of Marco Biazio on the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill. Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary to signify crown consent to the bill. For the purposes of rule 911 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prorogative and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. Many thanks and we can now begin the debate. I invite members who wish to speak in a debate, press the request to speak buttons, please. I call on Marco Biazio to speak to it and to move the motion minister 10 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do not think that I have emptied a room this fast since I got up to do karaoke at party conference, but thank you to everyone who has contributed, thank you to everybody who is still here. The members of all parties, the huge number of people that have really contributed throughout the last three years to making this bill what it is today, has been a collective effort between Government, Parliament and the grassroots, as befits a bill that is all about community empowerment. The bill is much better for their participation, their challenge and their input. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank Rob Gibson and the members of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for their incredibly detailed scrutiny of community right to buy. Kevin Stewart and the members of the local government and regeneration committee for their thorough scrutiny of the bill during stages 1 and 2, including some interesting sessions that I was present at enjoying the hospitality and the debate. Both committees have to be applauded for taking evidence, as they did, from such a wide range of organisations and individuals in this process. That really careful, balanced consideration of the proposals led to an improved piece of legislation that will make a significant difference to communities across Scotland for years to come. At stage 2, I took amendments from all sides, which just again shows that when there are good ideas put forward to this Government, we will listen to them wherever they come from. That has continued today in discussions that have often been more about detail than about fundamental disagreements on principle. On that, from the national outcomes to participation requests from football to allotments, I am pleased that we have that shared vision, that desire for more empowerment, more participation for communities of all types across Scotland. The focus has been to make sure that we have legislation that will lift up, that will free the voices of people across Scotland who want to take part, to let them set local agendas in line with their own wishes and concerns. If I were to sum up the headings of the bill, there would be a series of them. The first would be participation. In the bill, participation requests provide a mechanism for communities to gain a proactive role in how local services are planned and delivered to take part. Community bodies could use the bill to discuss with service providers how they could better meet the needs of their users, to offer volunteers to support a service or even propose to take over the delivery of the service themselves. I think that that will be a really powerful tool for communities to take action on their terms. I want it to spread and take root as a go-to point for those communities who wish to realise their ambitions. It highlights where improvements can be made, where people come forward with solutions as to how they can be taken forward and can deliver together. I thank the minister for allowing that to happen for one particular community in my constituency, the community of South Col, and the amendments to the bill, which the minister was very helpful in ensuring were drafted and then were accepted by the committee that has been accepted today. That will give new hope to a community that desperately wants to purchase Castle Towered is being prevented by a recalcitrant and backward-looking local authority. The bill gives real hope today, and the community of South Col is grateful to him and to this Parliament if it passes the bill at 8 o'clock tonight. I think that the member will be very glad to have put that on the record, and I am happy to put on the record my support for communities that wish to take up all of the opportunities of the bill to participate. One of the changes that was developed at stage 2 was to help with our move towards participation and empowerment. We put a new power in the bill that would require public bodies to promote and facilitate the participation of people in communities in decisions and activities of all public bodies. That is a challenge. It is worth accepting, but we know that there are people already out there pioneering techniques such as participatory budgeting, which Malcolm Chisholm will know very well from his constituency and the Leith decides initiative, and I give way to him. It is just the point that I raised in debate about allios. I believe that they are not mentioned in the bill, but can the minister confirm that they will definitely be included in regulations? I noticed the omission and I was going to come back to it in closing. I am happy to answer that point right now. Allios are not listed in schedule 3 and are not public authorities, but there is the ability for Scottish Governments to, by order, designate additional organisations under certain circumstances, provided they meet certain qualifications. Obviously, there is a blurred boundary between what is a public body and what is an entirely private body, and we have to be aware of competence here. However, there is that provision, and we would be seeking to ensure, as we already did on allotments following a particular concern, that allios were within the spirit of the bill as bodies that are delivering on behalf of the public sector. Alex Salmond? The community right to buy has been an evolving process over the past few years. The bill takes it much further than we have had before, but there will be nothing to stop in the future at evolving further. For example, it could be in the future that a community of anglers might have the right to buy out the netting rights in one of Scotland's great fishing rivers. That would be the sort of thing that would be given active consideration as this process moves forward. Yes, it takes me back to the discussion that I had in previous amendments with Alex Ferguson about communities of interest when we are in this bill allowing the transfer of public assets. We have very consciously identified communities of interest as groups that could take on ownership of assets themselves, people who share an interest or a background or an activity, because there are many kinds of communities. There are not simply localities, which are important communities. There are also people who share characteristics and wish to work together or activities and wish to work together on them. That ownership, when you are not simply a group of people sharing either a locality or an idea, when you can bring that together with the ownership of an asset, it results, I believe—I strongly argue—in more confidence, capacity and cohesion. It gives a flag to rally around and a sense of ownership, because it is based on what is essentially, in many cases, actual ownership. Whether it is reviving a local shop, renovating derelict sites, providing a hub for community activities, control of assets can be a key factor in making a community a more attractive place to live and supporting its economic regeneration. My colleague, Dr McLeod, has—I would contest—deftly steered community right to buy through this Parliament. I am not just saying that because she is sitting next to me. We have a comprehensive set of improvements but also a fundamental shift in the way community right to buy can be used by communities. It is now available in urban and rural contexts, and the new part 3A will be instrumental in helping communities to deal with problem land. At the same time, no single bill or action that any Government takes will change this pattern overnight. As the land reform review group report emphasised, land reform is a long-term process, but we firmly believe that those measures help to lay the foundation for future action on land reform and our vital next steps. If participation in assets are two key parts of the bill, another theme, another strand is inequalities, recognising how inequalities can impact on the ability of communities to use the bill. It has been a focus of concern for the committee, and we have been working together on this to ensure that we empower the disempowered. We have brought forward amendments. We are requiring public bodies to consider inequality and we are targeting locality planning, so that all community planning partners can bring their resources to bear on those neighbourhoods that have the most disadvantage. We are also, let's be honest, let's be proud to put a significant amount of investment through this programme directly into communities. We are putting an extra £5.6 million in the people and communities fund, and that will be part of the overall empowering communities pot, which now stands at £19.4 million of support. We have listened to everything that has been said and the collaborative approach really has allowed the bill to evolve into an extraordinary piece of legislation that touches on practically all aspects of human activity, but it also makes sure that our public services are focused on improving what our communities care about and putting them in the driving seat. The broad consensus in favour reflects our commitment, the shared commitment, to working with everyone, and following its enactment we will continue that dialogue as we develop draft guidance and proceed with implementation. Again, I would like to thank all those who contributed, who will continue to contribute, and it gives me enormous pleasure to move the motion. I move that the Parliament agrees that the community empowerment Scotland bill be passed. I thank all those who have given incredible amount of time, energy and support to enable us to scrutinise the legislation and to significantly improve on the bill that was initially presented to us. I thank the parliamentary staff for supporting both committees. I thank all our witnesses, all the community and interest groups who gave evidence and spoke to us during the process. I also want to specifically mention the work that the land reform group has done, which I think has been useful in setting a backdrop to the bill. I thank the environment minister for her willingness to work with the members of the rural committee to help to improve the bill. I have to say that I get the sense of the chamber that the minister has also made his contribution on the local government side, so I think that that is definitely something to be welcomed. As Scottish Labour, we strongly support the principle that communities be given more opportunities to work together to improve people's lives. We agree with the point made by SCVO that the connection needs to be made with the legislation that we are passing today and the Scottish Government's social justice strategy. It is a fundamental opportunity to seize the chance to make sure that we tackle inequalities and that we look at our land and our buildings, so we strongly support the ambitions behind the community empowerment bill. We see it as unfinished business from the land reform legislation that we passed in 2003. That act has enabled rural residents to be in more control of their destiny, to make better use of the natural resources in their communities, and it has been transformative legislation. A key part of that success has been the existence of dedicated finance to enable community transfers to take place, but one of the challenges—we have come back to it and that is why our committee went into such detail on the face of the bill—is for communities to work their way through complex legislation. The need to avoid complexity is an issue raised by the law society, and the wording of the regulations and the guidance that it follows is absolutely crucial in enabling communities to use the legislation that we passed today, so that it becomes an opportunity, not an obstacle to buying land. Support from the Scottish Government in terms of advice and finance will be critical if communities are able to make the best use of the legislation, so we need to see the detailed implementation and the regulations being put in place as swiftly as possible. I particularly want to welcome today the extension of the option of the right to buy to urban communities. There will be challenges, and I particularly want to thank the community members and councillors in the Calton and Glasgow for their ideas on how we make the bill as effective as it can be. I am also conscious of the needs and aspirations of communities in Edinburgh and the Lothians. As the law society pointed out, we need to ensure that the potential higher cost of land does not frustrate the ambitions of the bill, so there are lots of implementation issues for us to think about. One of the key issues that we discussed throughout the consideration of the bill has been the need for clarity surrounding the provisions on neglected and abandoned criteria. The debate that we had in stage 2 was important to understand how the Scottish Government will approach the detail. Today, we have also been debating amendments on sustainable development and to add in the environmental wellbeing criteria. I very much want to welcome the clarification from the minister today about how she sees the legislation being implemented. What is said on the record today and the overwhelming support that there has been for the new key principles will be looked at in the future. They will be important for future decisions by ministers and by courts, hopefully more by ministers and less by courts. However, they will be important, so I was very keen that we teased those out today. In my own area in the Lothians, I know of a cinema that has been empty for a decade. Marco Biazio will know the place where I am talking about the audience cinema. It is a classic example of a building that has become an eyesore in a shopping parade, that has huge potential and that, over the years, will have been deteriorating. It was really good to hear from the minister today the idea of buildings in a shopping parade, that the social wellbeing of a community is part of the environmental wellbeing. I very much welcome that commitment that we have had this afternoon. I hope that, up and down the country, communities and owners will be thinking about this in more depth. I hope that it will concentrate minds that we need to have buildings and land used to the best benefit of the community as a whole. There are new options provided today that will come from the passage of this bill. That is something that we should all celebrate. That is partly why people are working to work together. I welcome the fact that there has been a collegiate approach in the committees and ministers today. I hope that a more constructive and positive set of relationships between landowners and communities will flow from the legislation. The very existence of the legislation will be good across the country. It will raise people's aspirations and that is a good thing. I particularly want to welcome the fact that there has been the possibility for mediation initiated by the ministers between communities and landowners when it is appropriate. Rather than ranks of lawyers sitting in a room debating the fine detail, let us get the people to come up with good solutions that will benefit local communities and those who are the stewards of our land and buildings. I started my comments by welcoming the fact that this was unfinished business from the 2003 act. Today, in itself, leaves new unfinished business. Important issues were raised by the land reform group, compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sale orders that will now be looked at by the Scottish Law Commission. There is more work that will need to be done. Crucially, we need to build capacity and support in our communities to ensure that we deliver the social justice and the regeneration of communities that is at the heart of the legislation. This is important work that we have been doing over the past few months. Today has been good. The new provisions and allotments supported by the expert lobbying of the Scottish Association for Allotments and Gardens. They do not miss the target when they get going. The opportunities for sustainable development, for community growing and for community health and wellbeing that comes from gardening and allotments are something that is really important and we need to capture that. The opportunities to come on the right to buy for football, that again is a new opportunity that we will be able to come back to. Empowerment, opening up new opportunities for our communities, particularly for those communities that are currently disadvantaged, there are new opportunities that come today and we need, as MSPs, to make sure that our local communities will benefit from those changes. Let us pass this bill today, let us move forward together and then let us look forward to the next bit of land reform that, as I understand, will be coming at us at a rate of knots. Today, I think that this bill is better than it was when it was introduced. It is stronger for the debate and the discussion, communities and organisations have helped us to get this bill together and I hope that it will be passed at stage 3 tonight. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I call on Cameron McCam to speak for five minutes or thereby, I want to make the chamber aware that the Presiding Officer has determined that decision time will take place at 8.15 tonight. That will allow every member who wishes to speak in the debate the opportunity to do so. Mr McCam, on five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This Parliament's consideration of the community empowerment bill has been a long and very detailed process with many important points raised. I too would like to thank the clerks and everybody else who has been involved with it and the two committees. I have always agreed with the principle of enabling communities to have a greater say in local matters and welcome provisions to facilitate it. However, I am concerned that there are a number of areas where the bill may allow central decisions still to take precedence over the local priorities. These worries cannot be passed over. Members will be more than aware that there have been many amendments, many amendments tabled today, and although I will not have time to analyse each of them, I do think it is worth touching on some of the most prescient points raised. My central aim or our central aim has always been to ensure that the bill will genuinely delegate decision making so that members of the public can benefit from local flexibility and autonomy, and not subject to the whims of the Scottish Government. The extent to which this aim is realised does come down to two factors. The first is the breadth and strength of directions imposed on communities and local authorities from the central government. The second is the extent to which procedures contain the necessary safeguards to ensure that any community wishing to become involved in local decision making has a reasonable chance of so doing. As a case in point, the interreaction between parts 1 of the bill relating to national outcomes and part 2 relating to community planning does raise concerns that local priorities may be overshadowed by national decisions. This is particularly true since each community planning partnership must have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish ministers. I agree with efforts to encourage community participation in the development of local authority improvement plans, but I still think that this Parliament and public officials across Scotland would do well to ensure that local priorities are the driving force. On a similar note, I wish to focus on the bill's provisions of the allotments regarding the allotments because they have raised concerns about local autonomy. In particular, the provisions that require the Scottish Government's consent for a local authority to change the use of an allotment site could, if used in a certain way, obstruct local decision making for national reasons. That is, I think, plainly contrary to the principle of facilitating local empowerment. If power is truly to be devolved from the centre, local authorities should be able to decide for themselves whether changing the use of an allotment site is in the local interest. Subject, of course—certainly. John Wilson. I will clarify in relation to the local authority decision making regarding closing an allotment site and the community. The allotment holders' input into whether or not a local authority makes that decision, because I think that part of the legislation is to give more power to communities, and surely that power should be to allotment holders to influence the council's decisions not necessarily just to council-making decisions that I win. Thank you for your intervention. I do not think that it is clear in the bill that this is the case. That is my concern, really. I do not think that it is actually clear. It has not been specified. I think that, also, the use of allotment—sorry, this is, I think, plainly—sorry, I have lost the way—to obstruct local decision making is for national reasons. This is plainly contrary to the principle of facilitating local empowerment, which I think is the point. If power is truly to be devolved from the centre, local authorities should be able to decide for themselves whether changing the use of an allotment site is in the local interest. Subject, of course, to reasonable protections. Unfortunately, I think that amendments passed this evening have restricted local authorities' freedom to decide which allotments are offered to tenants, but I would be grateful for the minister's assurance that local agreements are intended to take precedence. Having said this, I do welcome the change in the bill's provisions regarding the size of allotments. Those changes keep a reference in writing to a standard 250 square metre size, as many allotment holders desire, but also recognise the need for local flexibility. They therefore recognise that allotment holders' rights but also allow for flexibility when local authorities and allotment holders can agree, which is the kind of move away from central direction towards local decision making that this bill would do well to have more of. Of course, the central part of this debate is ensuring that the bill does what it says. It empowers local communities to take part in decision making. We do agree with the principle that community bodies should be able to request to participate in local outcome improvement programmes to make asset transfer requests, but that must be reinforced by proper protections. I would like to stress that I am not making any assumptions, but it is important that communities are protected through a right to review or appeal from being shut out of local decision making for inappropriate reasons. I note that the Scottish Government responded to my points about allowing a review or appeal when an asset transfer request is agreed, but contract negotiations are broken down by setting up an appeal process where no contract is included between a relevant authority and a community transfer body. That is welcome change in favour of community bodies' involvement. The Scottish Government would have done well to replicate throughout the bill. What I can say now is that I expect the Scottish Government to share my commitment to monitor annual reports in the interests of ensuring that applications are treated appropriately. I hope that the minister across the chamber will join us in committing to uphold the principles of community empowerment. We now move to open debate. I call on Clare Adamson to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Four-minute speeches, please, or thereby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been a very interesting afternoon. Lots of topics have been raised regarding the community empowerment bill, but I absolutely believe that it is about community and the communities in which we live. I had a very poignant experience before coming to the chamber this afternoon because I attended the unveiling of the Scottish Steelworkers Memorial on the Ravens Craig site in North Lanarkshire. I was struck that it was a community project. It was something that brought together the communities of North Lanarkshire, both from the heritage side and the industrial heritage of our communities, but it also brought together local schools and the local council, which also supported the fundraising for the Steelworkers Memorial. It was very poignant because of where that memorial sits in our community, which is on the previous Ravens Craig site in North Lanarkshire. When I was a school child there, I would never have imagined that an anti-Scots sculpture, which will form part of our heritage in the future, would be on that site. Indeed, I do not think that anti-Scots would have envisaged any of its sculptures at that time. However, to have that there on the site of what was the steelworks beside the regional sports centre in the heart of what will be a changing and developing community, it brought home to me just how important it was to bring all our communities together in looking forward to the future. It brought together some of the themes that have come out this afternoon about everything changes, nothing stays static, and that this is a framework that should take us forward in the future for as-yet-and-as-visaged community empowerment projects that may come our way. I was glad that the minister paid tribute to the work of the committees. I only joined the local government committee in November and I have to admit that the bulk of the work had already been done by that point and a lot of the evidence that was there. Yes, certainly, minister. I just want to be able to know how she feels. I say to the minister the wide-ranging debate this afternoon. We have had the minutiae of allotment sizes to a philosophical conundrum from colleague Rob Gibson when he asked the question of what is a definition of an environment. We have to look to the big scale and the blue-sky thinking in that, as well as to the individual minutiae of the whole process. However, I think that this is a bill that will empower communities through the ownership of land and buildings. It will strengthen our voices and the decisions that matter to our communities and put them at the heart of this process. I think that the extension of the community right to buy across Scotland will help to deliver the Government's ambitious target of 1 million acres of land in community ownership by 2020. I think that the bill will improve the outcomes for communities by involving communities in the process of community planning and strengthening partnership workings in our local authorities and in our community environments. I am very glad that the Scottish Government has supported this process with an additional £10 million that will be provided through the new empowering communities fund to make sure that people can be more involved in the decisions that affect their lives. I think that there is much to be commended—a lot of it has already been debated this afternoon—but I do think that the ownership of land and buildings and strengthening voices in the decisions that matter to the communities is at the heart of what we are doing this afternoon. Presiding officer, it will be a long afternoon and I am going to leave it there. I hope that I look forward to passing the bill passage later this afternoon. No call on Claudia Beamish to be followed by Rob Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Land reform is, of course, a continuum and Scottish Labour has contributed robustly to the process and will continue to do so today and beyond. The community empowerment bill, which together we hope will pass, is an essential part of this process. At stage 1, I spoke of the keen interest in community ownership from a South Scotland perspective. Communities are in need of and have a right to the levels of support that have been on offer over the years in highlands and islands. Scottish Enterprise should be tasked, in our view, with a new remit and the focus of the proposed bodies in relation to the wider land reform issues must offer even support throughout Scotland. I seek reassurance from the minister on this issue in his closing remarks. The human rights aspect of the bill and the amendment are significant. In stage 3 briefing, Community Land Scotland states that ministers will need to have regard to the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights when making certain decisions about community ownership. As a member of the Scottish co-op party parliamentary group, I was delighted to find that the Scottish Government has taken forward the possibilities for the Bencom model, a co-operative model. What is the minister able to do through co-operative development Scotland to support this option? It should be recognised that urban and rural regeneration are not all about ownership itself, however. They can be about good partnership with private land owners and the range of public bodies. I am relieved that the central thrust of the changes needed for allotment holding have been accepted today. The frustration experienced by many who want to grow food themselves yet do not have access to any land has built up over far too long. Constituents who have approached me after years on council waiting lists seeing unused patches of land going literally to waste will have a sense of comfort and draw some optimism from today. This will also create, I believe, an opportunity for young people who have been involved in growing food through eco schools. I am sure that the allotment societies across Scotland will see the passing of this bill as a fresh opportunity to connect with young people and provide the chance for them to get growing through starter spaces, and some of us saw these in elite allotments. I wish all allotment holders and those with aspirations well. Yesterday, I attended a strategic discussion about the development of a community responsibility for the Carlook High Mill in my region of South Scotland. After what have been complex discussions with the land over owner, the steering group, which includes Carlook Development Trust along with other groups, and I quote, will secure the long-term future of the high mill by returning it to a working state with the aim that it will become a key centre of cultural, economic and educational activity whilst ensuring that it is supported by a sustainable enterprise business model. This creates opportunities for allotments, local food production and a community cafe around the mill hub. Again, this is about lease and not ownership. However, opportunities for ownership are fundamental to the way forward in Scotland. The Rural Affairs and Climate Change and Environment Committee in Orkney session did, I believe, dispel with the help of Dave Thompson and Sarah Boyack and others, the myths about the development of land reform. Good landowners have nothing to fear as they develop alongside communities. However, the distribution of land ownership in Scotland is not just and can indisputably hamper the community opportunity for job creation, good housing and community vision more broadly. The passing of the community empowerment bill today will go some way to correcting some of these distortions, and Scottish Labour also eagerly awaits the publication of the land reform bill next week and will be making a strong contribution to its progress. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to reach this stage in the bill because we have covered a huge amount of ground, both in Kevin Stewart's committee and in my own. In our own case, we were brought into the process somewhat later on to deal with part 4. It's basically the land reform part of those things that we dealt with, but I'd like to comment on one or two other things as well. It's really important that, when people saw this, they thought that there might be some great difficulties put in the way of simplifying things like the crofting community right to buy. However, we found in fact that, by adding those things at stage 2, it was possible to have that debate, to take the evidence and indeed to reach a consensus about simplifying those processes, which make it much easier for crofting communities and so on. The simplification of registration processes by communities, crofting or otherwise, is one of the things that I'm most proud of because it's a daunting process for people who are perhaps suddenly have thrust on them within a few weeks, the necessity to create a business plan and, indeed, to register the right to buy. That registration process and, indeed, re-registration within five years is something that has been simplified considerably. Extending the right to buy across Scotland has been one of the major aims just now. We should recognise of course that there will be many problems that this throws up. We should never underestimate the obstacles to achieving a step change in development in so many varied communities across Scotland, but I think that we've laid the groundwork to be able to do that. I'm also delighted that we've been able to extend the forms of community bodies to skeos and bencoms, as has been said earlier. I think that that's very important because it allows people to pick a form that's suitable to their area. In listening to discussions about community planning partnerships and much more local plans, I like the idea about locality plans, which were dealt with by the other committee. I think that small parts of community council areas can focus on that. I can think of one at Calrhaen at the moment in my constituency that we'd love to have been able to do that at an earlier stage because it prepares people for when they're actually going to take action because they've thought about it beforehand and about the resources that they might need. As far as local authorities are concerned, they can be quite a constraint on the transfer of land to communities. Our committee took some time in looking at that aspect because we found around the country very varied views in local authorities about how much they were prepared to do that. Local authorities through John Mundell, chief executive of Inver Clyde Council, said that, if we are disposing of assets, we are always required to obtain best value. That normally means market value, whether we use the district value or another mechanism to value the asset. We want to change what best value means in terms of communities because it cannot be the market value. It must be at some level other than that. That's one of the pieces of work that we've got to take on from this, but it's opened the door to being able to do that. Above all, I think that, for my point of view, the thing that is most cheering about this whole process has been the development of the arguments about human rights and, in particular, the embrace that the Government has taken to the UN covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which guarantees certain rights such as sanitation, food and housing. How to apply that in our circumstances could aid many communities in our urban areas, as well as those abroad, because the UK signed up to that in 1976, and it's something that is generally accepted as being a gold standard. ECHR, we found so often, was related to property, but this is related to people. I've got great pleasure in supporting the way in which the legislation has been taken forward, and I hope that we can get the secondary legislation passed as a priority. I start with Rob Gibson's very fair point about best value, because the usual charge made of any legislation is does it actually make a difference and can it be seen to do so? In describing the use of a redundant school in Shetland, which has not been used for school for a long, long time, the council in my area sold it to the largest developer, to the developer who paid the highest fee. Instead of a voluntary group who were going to use one of the school buildings, which was a canteen for a particular use, I won't bore the chamber with what it was all about, but if this legislation can enable that community group to buy that asset and to use it for the activities that they so wish, then it will have done something purposeful and it will be well worth passing. I can't improve nor am I going to attempt to go through the legislation in a way in which the minister did in his opening remarks when I agreed very much with a tenor of his observations. I think he described that the legislation is extraordinary. The one parliamentary observation I might make is when we pass pretty enormously wide legislation, catch-all legislation, we, I suppose, have to consider that we used to criticise Westminster Governments of all persuasions for passing the annual Miscellaneous Scotland Bill. This does strike me not as a miscellaneous bill, but very much as a detailed, complex and, but nevertheless, wide bill. I'm sure that the Government don't want to reflect on the process that allowed it to be that. I have to say that my highlight of the day was the allotments debate. It's just as well around McNeill is still not the parliamentary sketchwriter for the Scotsman, Alec Ferguson and Sarah Boyack. We'll remember those Halcyon days when Rab used to look down from the benches up the road when we were up the road. I don't think Kamyn Euda survived his sketch tomorrow morning. Sadly, for the Minister, the bill would no longer have been the community parliament bill but would have been the allotment bill or the swede bill or something like that. Nevertheless, the Minister has made, the Minister's plural, I should say, has made a lot of progress. In my day it was one Minister who dealt with a bill like this. I thought one of the ironies of today was getting a briefing last night for Peter Peacock, who used to grace the front bench in Governments of Past. Peter used to handle those kinds of bills, the whole of them. All goodness knows how many sections and clauses and what have you, and he used to provide briefings to the rest of us who were subsequently taking bills through Parliament. He did it because he had a huge attention for detail and could hold the chamber and hold parties across the chamber just because he had that. If Mark O'Bashley follows that kind of approach, I think that he'll do very well as a Minister, because the effectiveness of someone like Peter Peacock was his ability to produce detailed legislation and make it understandable to all of us. His briefing, I thought, was a master of its kind. It's usual Peter Peacock piece, which said, commends the support of all parties for the Governments' amendments for stage 3, subject to the following comments, and there are two pages of comments. That was very, very Peter Peacock, I thought. I'll just make two final points to the Government on this. The first is just the—I want to recognise that the Minister and the Minister's plural did take amendments from all sides of Parliament in considering how best to improve this legislation. Hitherto, I actually thought the best example of that going back through Parliament was the first cut at land reform, which again some, dare I say, older colleagues will recall, because that bill was very, very different from the original legislation that was proposed to Parliament. Again, it was because of the point that the Minister rightly made from the front bench, which is that so many groups and interested parties made observations to say, like, that isn't good enough or that needs to be altered. And I thought that's come through in the way in which the Ministers have reflected on the observations they've made, and to some extent that was also the case with the FAMs amendments that Alison Johnson persuasively made for both in committee and this afternoon. And the final point I thought was the one that Alex Ferguson made about the clarity of the bill. I necessarily agree with the arguments on the particular clauses that he was pursuing, but when Michael Russell is no longer with us, but I think Rob Gibson made the same point, when colleagues from even from the Government benches are saying some of this may end up getting tested in court, then we've got to be careful we've got it right, because that is not a good sign for any legislation. I appreciate it's a very small part of the bill, and I'm sure the Minister will reflect on that, no doubt, with his good legal counsel as well and the Lord Advocate and all. But I think it is important that we seek to avoid situations in which we have recourse to say, good gosh, we're just going to end up testing this in the court. I'm sure that's not the Minister's intention, I'm sure that he'll do his best to avoid that, but that must be a lesson in any way that we draft these kinds of pieces of law. Thank you so much. I now call on John Wilson to be followed by Kevin Stewart. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, first of all, draw attention to my register of interests because I do have a particular interest in this issue of community empowerment. I have had an interest in community empowerment for a number of years, and I was reminded by the person sitting behind me that we actually had this debate in 1988 in terms of a particular community in the south side of Glasgow. First of all, I thank all those members who gave evidence to the committee, all those community groups who gave us evidence, as well as informal sessions that we had throughout Scotland with community groups, about what their expectation in terms of community empowerment was looking at in terms of their roles within their communities. To challenge Cameron Buchanan, it wasn't always just about what the Scottish Government was doing, it was what local authorities were doing to many communities. There was an engagement process that communities felt disempowered from when local authorities were making decisions, and what I am hoping is that this bill will take forward rights for many communities to actually be properly consulted, properly engaged with and feel truly empowered in terms of the decisions that are being made within their communities. I would also like to thank the ministers and Amin Ministers plural for their willingness to accept the comments that have been made both at stage 2 and the lead-up to stage 3 today in relation to the comments from members and others about what we would like to see in the bill and particularly the willingness to take on board and take forward some of the suggestions that have been made. The real test of any legislation passed by this chamber is the impact that it has in real terms for the communities throughout Scotland. There is an expectation that once enacted, this legislation will genuinely empower communities who have so far been failed in their attempts to engage meaningfully in shaping the delivery of services identified by the communities themselves. One of those areas is the asset transfer debate, because I am directly involved in community asset transfer negotiations at the present moment with the local authority. We look at local authorities and other public agencies and we ask them to consider what they mean by community asset transfers. Rob Gibson used the phrase about best value. I do not look at best value in economic terms. I look at best value for communities and what those asset transfers can deliver in terms of economic and social impact in those communities. Many communities have good ideas and have good visions in terms of what they can deliver as a community for their own community. Unfortunately, as Rob Gibson highlighted, for many public sector agencies and local authorities, they see an asset transfer of being a monetary value. We have to shape that and change that attitude that best value is about money, about what can be delivered, how it is delivered and who is delivering that. Clearly, many communities throughout Scotland want to engage in that process, to take forward their own projects and to deliver services in their communities. At the present moment, many of them are being held back by the very view that it comes out from, particularly local authorities, that they know best for those communities. It is about changing society and, hopefully, after almost 40 years of talking about community engagement, what we now see in that piece of legislation is genuine community empowerment to allow those communities to take forward their ideas and to engage meaningfully in the shaping of their futures. When we debated the community empowerment bill at stage 1 on 3 February this year, I pointed out that the unifying theme to that legislation was trust. Trust that communities all over Scotland know what is best for them and have the desire and ability to help to bring their ambitions to reality. Trust that the bill will give them a range of tools to make those desires a reality. Trust that our public services will rise to meet the opportunity that the bill presents for them to empower the communities that they serve. The level of input and engagement that we as parliamentarians have received from communities across Scotland as we have considered and amended the bill indicates that view. The 16th-century philosopher and statesman, Sir Francis Bacon, is reputed to have coined that well-known expression, knowledge is power. In this case, knowledge is empowerment. That is why I believe that a special duty now falls upon the Scottish Government, local government and other public bodies to empower communities across Scotland by informing them about the bill and the powers that it provides. Whether it be the ability to assume control of local community assets such as community halls or leisure venues or requests by local groups to participate in the delivery of public services in order to achieve an outcome, communities across Scotland can only take full advantage of those new powers if they know about them and have the necessary support to use them effectively. I would also call on all members of this chamber to promote the value of this legislation to our constituents and encourage them to be active in community-based organisations so that they can empower themselves and their local communities. As the convener of the committee who scrutinised the lion's share of this bill at stage one, I know well the appetite that exists in communities across Scotland to be empowered with the tools to help themselves. The community empowerment bill, which we have finalised this evening, will provide the foundations for a new framework of empowerment across Scotland. Crucially, this will be a framework of empowerment that will be designed and delivered by ordinary folk, living and working in their communities. It will help to free their ambitions from the often well-intentioned but stiflingly dead hand of officialdom and bureaucracy. Presiding Officer, since the bill was introduced into the Parliament in June 2014, Scotland has undertaken a remarkable journey of civic and community empowerment. The extraordinary level of public engagement and participation in the independence referendum, which has carried through to the recent UK general election, has provided the perfect platform from which to launch the bill. However, as with so many things in this life, the bill is not the end of a process, nor is it a means to an end in itself. Rather, we should see the community empowerment bill for what it is—a new staging post on the journey of empowerment that so many communities across Scotland are already embarked upon. The powers contained in the bill, if used to their fullest, can provide the confidence and impetus that our communities need to be able to take their future wellbeing into their own hands. That does not necessarily mean that the task will always be an easy one. Most worthwhile pursuits in life never are. However, I trust that it is a challenge folk all across Scotland are more than ready to meet. I would once again like to thank the thousands of ordinary people across the length and breadth of Scotland who engaged with the local government and regeneration committee on this bill. Their vital contribution has helped to shape the bill in ways that will benefit generations of Scots far into the future. Finally, I truly believe that the community empowerment bill will shift the balance of empowerment away from the agencies of the state and towards ordinary people in the communities that they live in. Communities across Scotland need to feel like they are in a partnership of equals with the agencies that provide them with the services that they need. Too often in the past, this has not been the case. This bill will go far to address this imbalance. For this reason, I very much look forward to voting this bill into law at decision time this evening. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I now call on Alex Rowley, after which we will move to the closing speeches. In the short time that I have, can I firstly congratulate and say well done to the local government committee? Can I absolutely associate myself with all the comments that John Wilson had to make? That I would like to be one bit in my speech, which John said. Can I now focus on something a bit different? The co-operation that we have seen in this bill is what I think we need to move forward with. This bill will be no plan to see her, for example, for the austerity that is in the unnecessary austerity that has now been imposed on public services across Scotland, and we need to address that. That is for another day. What I want to talk about is local government finance and how we address that. The minister has brought forward the commission on local taxation, and I welcomed that at the time. I have sat on it for a period of time, and I look forward to that commission concluding. The important thing is that the political parties in this chamber, and certainly my political party and the political party government, need to give an absolute commitment that we are going to put party politics to one side to be able to find a solution. If we try and outbid each other on council tax freezes, then all that we are going to do is do local government to another five-year freeze, which, as we know, will have an addictive impact on the ability of local authorities to be able to have sustainable long-term finance. If one party is frightened to move because the other party is going to make major political capital out of that and make it an election issue coming forward, I would say that the co-operation that we have seen with this bill, we need to give the absolute same commitment to work together the parties in this chamber to find a long-term sustainable approach to local government finance. As we move forward, can I say that, in terms of community planning, the Christie report has highlighted, and regardless of whether we were able to find that long-term sustainable approach to local government finance, Christie has approached that we cannot continue to do things that the way that we were doing things in the past and we need to find new ways to work in and we need to look at a more preventative agenda. I actually believe that this bill and the moves that have been made within this bill to ensure that community planning is able to involve, genuinely involve local communities and engage with local communities will help us move that agenda forward. We need to look at sometimes structures. The health and social care partnerships, for example, is something that absolutely supports, but whether that is the end of the road or whether you would actually want to bring these organisations together, whether you would want to govern them differently, only time will tell. However, as community planning partners, the health service, local authorities, the voluntary sector and there must be a greater role for the third sector, then this bill, I believe, will take us to the next step, because I am a believer that community planning is absolutely the correct way to go forward. It is also right that local people and local communities are able to determine what their local priorities are and where the local resources should be spent. The bill again takes us in this direction. I conclude by saying that I hope that across Scotland political parties and local government will see this bill as an opportunity to begin to work together in the interests of our communities. In this Parliament, the success of parties coming together and working together will mean that we will look to tackle the difficult issues like the future of local government funding and that we will work together. Many thanks. Now we move to the closing speeches. I call on Alex Ferguson four minutes thereby please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are almost at the culmination of what has been a very long and lengthy process involving, as we have heard, several parliamentary committees, a vast array of witnesses, stakeholders, civil servants, parliamentary staff and others. Whatever our overall views on this weighty piece of legislation, they should all be warmly thanked and I'm delighted to be able to do so from these benches. As the minister said in opening this debate, there are not many differences across the chamber on the overall aspirations of this bill, but there are differences on detail. We can't pretend that they don't exist despite the excellent spirit and sometimes humour that has marked today's stage 3 process. I ideally wish that the Government had differentiated between the right to buy in urban Scotland and the right to buy in rural Scotland, because I can see situations within an urban context that would absolutely justify a right to buy without a willing seller. However, I can also see that that could have significant unintended consequences when translated into a rural context. Several witnesses at the rural affairs committee echoed the desirability of making this differentiation, as did the law society, and I think that the bill is poorer for its absence. Marco Biagi also said during the discussion of amendments that everything in this bill is about empowering communities, and so it should be. However, as members will have picked up all afternoon, we on these benches believe that in seeking to empower communiti