yn siŵr i'r ddau datblygu a phobl iawn i'r ddau i'w gwneud. Mae ddech chi wedi bod yn fawr mryd i'w ysgolwydau i'r ddechrau y ddisgoedd o'r ddweud? Mae'n dduch yn ddau'r ddau sy'n ddau. Mae'n ddweud i'r ddau'r ddau sydd arweinydd cael bydd ac wneud eu bydd oedd y cweinio a'r dduch yn dechrau i'r ddau sy'n ddau sy'n ddau ac ydw i'r ddau. I think that is the end of the formal announcement and I'd therefore like to move on to a gender item one, which is on the Island Scotland Bill. This is our fourth evidence session on the Island Scotland Bill. We've already heard evidence for other local authorities affected by the Bill, our Garland Bute Council, Highland Council, North Ayrshire Council and the Western Isles Council and the Local Government Boundary Commission. Today we welcome Orkney and Shetland Island Councils. From Orkney Islands we've got Paul Maxden, the project manager for our islands, our future, James Stock and the leader of the council and councillor Stephen Heddle. From Shetland we've got Malcolm Bell, the convener and Mark Bowden, the chief executive. We have a series of questions and the first question is going to be a question will be led by Rhoda. Can I ask, given that both the councils were two of the three that originally set up our islands, our future, whether the overall intent of the Bill fits with your expectations when you start that process? Can I just say, if you want to come in and answer the question, if you try and catch my eye or bring you in, you don't need to push any of the buttons on your microphones, that should all happen automatically. Who would like to start off on that?  We are delighted to see the Bill coming through Parliament. It's meeting all our expectations. I would say that it's a start, but we do think that it could be much more ambitious. We think that the government could give a lot more powers and opportunities for us to take things much further, and we don't want the opportunity to be missed, so we're really quite keen to engage with you at this stage to see just how far the Bill can go, because I think it could truly be transformational if given the opportunity. Malcolm, would you like to talk to me? Yes, thank you, convener. I agree with James's said. I think it is a start, but only a start. It could contain more of the certainly things we would like to see developed within it, but I think things like the National Island Plan will be key and how that plays out will certainly be key, but it's very welcome. It's part of a suite of legislation, which we hope is going to result in the empowerment of island communities. Okay, Stephen, I'll bring you in and then I'll ask Ray to follow up with a further question. Yeah, thanks very much. I mean, as Malcolm says, this is part of a jigsaw for us. We're developing the island's deal and we realise that the application of island's proofing to other legislation coming through and such things as the local governance Bill and ultimately the crown estate bills can be very important as well. So this is key to us, key to our aspirations of trying to gain sustainable economic development for our islands, and one of the ways that we're going to do that, hopefully, would be through the means of community benefit, and that would be one of our key asks, I suppose, of one of the elements of disappointment that's not dialled into the island's bill as it currently stands. When the programme for government was laid, it specifically spoke about additional powers for island's councils as one of the five bullet points for the island's bill, and that's not really come through an island's bill as it's currently framed. There's a reference to additional marine licensing powers, but in the case of Shetland, it doesn't add anything to what they have already, and in the case of Orkney, it doesn't add substantially to what we have already. So, as James was saying, the idea of enabling powers so that the things that might come up through the island's proofing process could be achieved through secondary legislation and run through primary legislation, and we recognise that the Scottish Government might have difficulty in doing such enabling legislation. So, we've moved quite a bit in the way that we've been discussing this. We started off the point of view of asking for complete implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which would be genuinely transformational for us. We've moved to considering a general power of competence, and now we've moved to the idea of enabling legislation, which would be enacted in a progressive form through application to the Scottish Government to reassure the Scottish Government that they're no given the island's a blank cheque book. So, we think this is a not unreasonable ask. The other things that we've been looking for in the bill, as I mentioned, the concept of community benefit for all major development in the areas, this would be, again, a transformational thing if this was understood. We recognise that major developments maybe can't come up with community benefit on day one, but when they're successful, it's a not unreasonable ask. This is one of the things that we'll be asking for through the devolution of the Crown Estate, that the revenues from the Crown Estate activities in our area would come back to our area to enable us to develop the economy. But if it's going to go back to the starting position when we're considering that we're campaign to the Government, we made the clear ask that, I'm trying to find it in my notes here, that in the spirit of the Montgomery commission, which viewed the development of the powers of the island's councils as an evolutionary process and something that should be supported, we stated upfront that the council considers that the island's bill should explicitly express that the council has presently constituted, shall continue to enjoy also its special powers and legal status as it present, and that no legislation shall be passed which derogates from the council's powers of various territorial jurisdiction. Now, this is an expression of the status quo. The island's bill is meant to be taking things forward to the next level, so we feel that if the enabling powers is something that's too far to go into this island's bill, that at least this expressional retention of the powers of island's councils and support for community benefits should be forthcoming. Stephen, that was a very full answer. I'm going to ask Rhaedda to come back if I may, and just to clarify, if I also may, Stephen read the issue of Pranistate that will come up later under further questioning so we could perhaps part that as far as everyone else is concerned at the moment. Sorry, Rhaedda. Does the bill, as it stands, have enough empowerment of island councils to deliver that in secondary legislation, or is there something that has to be on the face of the primary legislation, the bill, as it stands, to allow those powers to come afterwards in secondary legislation? Do you think there's enough of the moment to empower you or are you looking for something more in the primary legislation? Paul, I think you can. Yes, I think we must definitely feel that there is a need for more empowerment and that primary legislation perhaps isn't sufficient in that regard. There isn't sufficient flexibility, and I think you'll see from our submission that we have put forward a submission whereby we've suggested a mechanism whereby through secondary legislation there could be flexibility, and we're moving into very uncertain and changing circumstances with Brexit. None of us know what the future holds, and I think it's adaptability in having the ability to adapt to future circumstances. I think the submission we put forward is very much to improve outcomes and improve outcomes for our communities. It's not just a power for the island councils. The process would be potentially by way of application. The application would be evidential support, being able to show support from communities, but also produce a business case, and that's very much in our interest to be able to demonstrate not just to the Government but to ourselves that we have the right case, financial or otherwise going forward. There's potential for a flexibility of approach. What we're proposing is the potential for a range of competences for that application to be made under. Within the marine licensing provision there's scope for an application process, and very much in visage something quite similar. I think particularly going forward, how would we use this? Potentially we could use it for fuel poverty schemes. Just as an example, we've had the experience, as you'll see through both the submission and in the draft concept of response difficulties we've had, having to rectify Scottish Government's own schemes. We would like to be proactive and actually take the initiative and go to Government with our own ideas, our own local solutions that will benefit our communities. And I think it's very much in keeping, I think what's proposed with what's in the community empowerment bill, and in particular section 22, which is participation requests. I think what we're basically suggesting is something following the same principle. Within participation requests that allows a community body to enter into dialogue with public authorities about local issues, and even with the potential to take over and deliver local services themselves. So I think when you look at participation requests in particular, I think there's a very similar principle involved here for what we're proposing here. I don't think it's a case of power for power's sake. I think we have to be able to demonstrate through the process suggested that it's workable and we have local community support. Before I bring in James, I'd like to just bring in John with a small follow-on question to that. It's a question for Councillor Heddle. You mentioned the European Charter and Self Government. I wonder if you could outline the difference between what that would commend and what's in this proposal, and in particular whether, for instance, a single purpose authority would be in line with the European Charter and Local Government.  It's a difficult question to answer concisely because the European Charter and the Local and Self Government is a large document. We've focused on, I think, the article 9 provisions in that that suggests that the subsidiarity should be assumed effectively the general power of confidence and that should be accompanied by adequate financing for the local authority to carry out its functions. That would be the two things that I would highlight from that. The free minute in the terms of European Charter and Local and Self Government made sense in that the Scottish Government has signed up to it, assess the UK Government and it would be consistent with the direction of travel for the democracies across the continent.  Yeah, because that was the point I was going to make. That Charter, I think, is really behind so much what we're doing. When we look across Europe and we see the autonomy afforded dial-in groups right across Europe, we're light years behind them. We want all the levers to make our economy work but to make the best use of the public pound as it comes here so that it gets the very best service level and also can stimulate the economy to the greatest degree. From what the then First Minister Alex Salmond said in the Lerwick Declaration, he made it quite clear that his party supported subsidiarity and wanted a local decision making. In fact, he went on to say that the maximum degree a local decision making should come through this. That's really where we want to go with this. We want to see the maximum. We don't want to see this bill not work for the Government or for the people or anybody in between. It's got to work so that it ticks the box for everybody. I would almost say, with the European Charter, I would want island proofing to be looked at in the fact we don't have to do that. It would only be the laws or the things that come out of the Parliament where they said, no, you can't have a change to that. Just take it from the other perspective, do it the other way around. We'd really transform the way we operate and we would get the very best results for the community and for the nation as a whole. Can I bring you in there? I'll answer very quickly. I think the short answer to the question is no. The bill, as it's written, doesn't empower and if it's taken in isolation it certainly wouldn't provide any empowerment. But I think it provides for empowerment, particularly through the National Island plant, which I think is absolutely critical and we would expect to see things in that that would help and provide for empowerment as we go forward. But as it stands it does provide for empowerment and we wouldn't necessarily want the bill to be too prescriptive in that particular respect. Briefly bring in Stuart because I think he's got a question then, Radon, I might try and come back to you, but I know there's one or two other people things. Stuart? I request a quicky short answer. When we visited Bursi this morning, one of the things we said was that the community there was also looking to be empowered from the centralised decisions that were made in Kirkwall. Is that something that's part of the aspiration of the respective councils? Who wants to answer that? James, you're going to answer that one because this you know we've started a new term of local government but it is definitely our decision and we do this already for some of our islands because we have an empowering communities agenda and we are actually supporting community councils on these islands in a way that's never been done before and we are looking also to roll that out across the mainland areas so that we can take a lot of the things that councils have always done to be seen kind of as they're right, the things that the communities can do for us and for themselves and we really want to you know pioneer a new way because we think we'll get far better buy-in, we'll get far better results and as budgets get squeezed there's different ways of doing things which so totally that is that's our modus operanda in the same way the Scottish Government want to get powers from Westminster, we are looking to get powers from Holyrood and we will be passing these on to our smallest communities. I'm going to let Ray to come back with a full-art question and then see where the answers. Just very quickly if the islands plan is the vehicle then that people deliver those aspirations you were talking about rather than the face of the bill there is an islands plan that covers everyone are you talking about maybe having something individual to each area that gives the powers that you're looking for because from what Stephen and James was saying seemed to be saying that there might be something quite different that each island community was looking for. So you can answer that yes or no I mean yes you want your own plan for each island or no? We want a chapter for each island because we are uniquely different and the islands that are outside the islands authorities are different too it needs to fit the bills so it benefits everybody in the way that makes the most sense. Okay Malcolm Mark to one of you want to answer that but Mark. Thank you. A national islands plan is most welcome and will be enormously helpful in taking forward the aspirations of the island communities of Shetland just because it's one plan it doesn't mean that it only has to have one size fits all the Scottish government is far more sophisticated than that. There will be many things that affect all the islands of Scotland that people live on so you could have one section that dealt with everything and there will be some things that are unique to particular islands or in our case groups of islands. We see the islands plan as a splendid development because it's not a it's not a once and for all the bill is a once and for all this has happened only once in my career it's not going to happen again we can't possibly deal with everything in the bill but the plan renewed every five years and reported on and discussed every year will be a document whereby as you learn you can add as you learn you can change as the world changes you can adapt and it's a very public document so it'll be a public dialogue between the government and the communities on the islands which is a powerful thing in the world of politics a powerful thing so we're confident that we'll be able to get into that plan or at least have a public dialogue with the government about the plan that will raise the issues that are relevant and there'll be enormous pressure on all of us who sign up to things in the plan to deliver them we don't need bureaucracy around that that will be and then that will come in we we talk about secondary legislation but it normally it often doesn't have to be secondary legislation what we want with the crown estate the sea the seabed of the crown sorry the seabed for the moment sorry i was just going to use that as an example but we'll come back to it we'll come back to that i'll perhaps pick up on mr stevensons point about communities and centralisation centralisation is not a concept we recognise in shatland it's important to recognise the uniqueness of the three island councils and the three archipelagos they represent they are different to everywhere else for a variety of reasons one is the challenges that they face and in our case the remoteness and rurality and insularity is extreme it's a 14 hour ferry ride from us to our port of entry where our businesses become on the same terms as everyone else all the costs and delay and difficulty are before that that nobody else shares the problems with isolation and rural poverty and so on and so forth they're they're quite distinctive of course so are the benefits and the opportunities that match that but i think one of the things i'd want to emphasise to the committee if i may is the unique position of the three island councils now why do i say that i'll use shatland as an example because of course it's the one i'm most familiar with and i have 40 pushing 40 years experience of different councils of different types and different sizes and i can tell you that i have never worked anywhere where the the the unity the common identity of the community and the council is so strong the council only serves 23 000 people its main settlement lurewick is only 7 000 population in in national playing policy it doesn't even count as town there is no centre to centralise on we are a dispersed group of islands with people living in very rural circumstance and great homogeneity within the island so it's a very tight community and there's a very close relationship between the the electors and the councillors who represent them and that means that what scotland's got and the government and parliament have got in shatland and in the other two island groups is is an opportunity to deliver community empowerment in a way they haven't got elsewhere because you've got an entity the council that has a huge commonality with its population and represents them really well so it's got a it's got that community leadership it's got democratic legitimacy and it's got operational capacity it can do things you don't have to create vehicles to do things the council can do them so i would argue that there's a superb opportunity for community empowerment in the three island groups through those councils that have the wide range of powers the operational capacity and the democratic legitimacy all there ready and waiting to be used it's a perfect time to bring in the deputy convener gael ross with the next question because i think that that will help focus this this issue good evening panel thank you for joining us the catalyst for this legislation came from the formation of our islands our future which was led by as you say the the three island authorities in 2013 can you tell me how well the aspirations of that campaign are reflected in the bill you'd like to lead on that's mark very well very pleased with the bill it delivers on to key enabling pieces of legislation island proofing and the islands plan the proofing will itself lead to a significant change in the approach of national bodies and indeed Scottish parliament to to the islands and to fine tuning legislation and policy to best suit them and we have every hope and intention that the plan will lead to an ongoing dialogue whereby more and more it is delegated to the island communities and the island councils who represent them as time goes by so it but as has been said already it's only a part of the jigsaw it has to be taken in conjunction with things will come on to like like the seabed there are many things that the forthcoming bill on local government reform the education agenda that's going on at the moment they all play in but the bill is the bill is central would somebody about steven do you want to go on that yeah thanks it's marx ace the island proofing is a key plank of what we were advocating through the our islands of your campaign and indeed the islands plan is clearly very much to be welcomed because this could indeed be a vehicle for empowerment though going back to the empowerment issue i mean i don't want to be negative about the island's bill at all it's an island's bill is a fantastic thing and the provisions in the island's bill in terms of the island's plan the island proofing and the the around the constituencies in marine licensing we very much welcome that but we're very keen that this island's bill is a thing of substance that's going to be welcomed by us by the government and by the people that we represent and the if you go back to the initial premise for the bill improved outcomes for the people in island communities we believe that through empowerment of the local authorities and thence to the communities that we serve it's the best way to do that and we're very much buying in to the the the whole onward devolution thing just as the devolution shouldn't have stopped at Edinburgh we recognise it shouldn't have stopped at Lerwick, Kirkwall or Stornoway and in the our islands of future campaign whose work was embodied in empowering Scotland's island communities I want to bring that into us a very important document but we still go back to it's part of our jigsaw of making sure that everything that we discussed in that process is delivered on either through the bill or through the deal or through the ongoing work with the government isn't it require legislation I mean all these things are hugely important and in empowering Scotland's island communities we recognise the role of the community planning partnership is central to our aspirations and indeed to the the disbursment of community benefit yeah I mean obviously the three island authorities were the ones that led in 2013 but we also because the bill covers all inhabited islands so we also have island council north Ayrshire and our Gaelan but and they face their own unique challenges being part of a mainland authority as well as having inhabited islands why were they not included in the original our islands our future do you want to to come in on that would you rather I think they came in quite late in the process and if you like the joint position statement which had been negotiated between the three islands councils was complete an engagement had already begun the campaign had already gained momentum and I believe that it was decision of Scottish Government itself you know because that things are going further down the line that it should just be the three islands councils that continue to be part of the process of the islands areas areas ministerial working group although that was subsequently altered further down the line again with the island strategic group. I mean if I may with your indulgence convener I'd just like to make a point in respect of empowerment the bill is very very welcome and we haven't had any if you like island centric legislation for some 40 years you know it's been quite quite some time very very welcome however there is no additionality when it comes to empowerment it's one of the key questions of the consultation indeed you know what additional powers do you think are necessary and from recollection I believe it was 73% of those who responded confirmed that there should be additional powers within the bill now I think in the absence of you know further empowerment and that's leaving aside marine licensing because that was a separate question about the extension of powers within the local acts when you look solely in isolation additionality there isn't really any additionality unless you look at the national islands plan which in a sense is could be described as empowerment but it places a huge importance on that national islands plan and you'll see from the ornallans council's response that we do have some concerns there I think it's absolutely imperative that the council has you know a very large say and the same for the other five authorities indeed and again going back to what was said before you know each area each authority has unique circumstances for their areas it's again imperative that that's manifested within within that plan and you know I think it could be stronger there's one of the recommendations from ornallans council is that you know the council along with its community planning partners should be a statutory consultee I mean I think that's reasonable and I think that specific provision could be stronger okay I'm going to bring Liam in if I may and then I'm going to come to you Malcolm thanks again I don't know if that's cutting across what others were saying it's picking up what Stephen Hale was saying there about island proofing I think one of the messages we've heard through previous evidence sessions and I've certainly picked up locally is that there are high expectations for this bill and I'm not sure necessarily there is a wide awareness of the enabling nature of the legislation and therefore certainly in terms of island proofing it's about legislation to come about policy to come rather than the retrospective application to problems that are already there due to what might be construed as a one-size-fits-all and I was interested that in the Ornallans council submission you make specific reference to that at one point and it's disappointing that there is no distinct mechanism to deal with retrospective island proofing the council gave numerous examples in its consultative response where its islands have suffered detriment through failure to island proof legislation and that becomes a recommendation in response to the first question in the consultation I was just wondering whether you had any firm views about how that might be achieved whether it be through the island plan or whether it be through a commitment from the government to look at some of those specific examples and retrospectively apply the island proof to give some confidence about what island proofing might mean in future can I just say at this stage that we have got a separate topic area on island proofing where Liam I think that question will will absolutely focus people's mind on it so if I rather than put that completely to one side could I just plant put that one and hold on the moment offer Malcolm the chance to come in and then I would like to move on to the next topic I am very mindful that we have quite a few themes the first theme that we've tackled has taken half an hour and the committee would like to hear from the audience um and and I'd hate for them to be sat here thinking that they're not going to get in before 11 o'clock so we're going to have to speed it up just to wee bit so Malcolm if I could bring you in and then move on to the to next plan and Liam I'm going to bring your question in at the at the moment where I see it comes in so Malcolm if I can go with you I mean I'll be brief and I just want to go back to the to the deputy convener's question which was around island authorities and authorities with islands I think the difference and I think we look back to the to the beginning of the campaign it was it was born in the very early days of the independence referendum campaign when a very tight constitutional situation because constitutions tend to be frozen they're not easy to change slackened off or or thought a little and that gave us an opportunity and we saw an opportunity we make no apology for seeing an opportunity and seizing an opportunity and it seemed and then it made perfect sense to work together with our fellow island authority partners whom we have so much in common there's lots of differences we have so much in common as well and also very different from other authorities who have islands I mean we provide services for 100% of people we provide services for rather are islanders I think if you look at um island it's somewhat 5% so we're very very different from them but we were always very clear that any benefits that came or fell from the campaign would apply equally to islands across Scotland but in the initial stages it was clear that the three island groups would would work would work together okay I think we're going to move on James to that's okay don't dilute that in bill to try and make it a one-size-fits-all because that's it must maximise for the people that initiated it I'm giving the oppression for what what people say you want it stronger not diluted but but uh John I think yours is the next next question yes our next theme I think okay John Finney and myself are both asking some questions on it is the national islands plan I realise we have already touched on that to some extent so I've just got really a couple of specific questions I was I mean I was interested I was I really enjoyed reading the whole Orkney submission and a so I picked out one of two things and specifically on the islands plan you say that it was discussed in the island strategic group and the comparison was made with the Gallic language plan and you felt that was quite a good model so I just wonder could you expand on that because I'm not that familiar with the Gallic language plan I assume a few others on either as to what was good about that that you would like to see replicated here James definite commitments both sides and holds to account and that's what we really want to see in in that so that we have definite commitments from the government but but also things from ourselves and timescales on them in which they would be delivered that's essential so that things don't drag on for years I also use words like proportionate that which I took to mean that in different areas of Scotland Gallic has a different significance and therefore councils would treat it differently and so I'm assuming that means with the islands bill because every council is different even the three island authorities that you would you'd want that kind of flexibility built in somewhere either into the plan or into the bill assumptions are correct I'm getting very short answers okay well my second my second point then would be it has been suggested by some people and as a layperson as a city person I confess I'd wondered if there should be some kind of you know specific objective overarching objective in the bill I mean the one that came to my mind was to say to stabilise and strengthen the population in every island in Scotland or something you know kind of that would really I would have thought would apply to yourselves to the western isles to other islands do you think there's a need for that or I mean the government's feeling seems to be it's better to leave anything like that for the plan because that might change but I would have thought again some objectives would be permanent you know for the next 100 years james you want to come on that or yeah I could just finish that off because I think if you look at each a you know community planning partnership in each of the islands that would actually say that and I just thought that that would be a given in what we do so we're strengthening we're actually sustaining islands we're hoping that they have a more active role in the life of the nation and we secure each and every one because some are particularly vulnerable and need you know support from authorities or from the councils that look after them I'm going to bring malchmen and then Stephen thanks Kevin oh I've actually got I mean James has said really what I was going to say I've got nothing much more to add on that I mean we would expect I mean we don't want to say I think I've said earlier we don't want to see the bill prescriptive I mean some of the things Mr Mason talks about would clearly be desirable outcomes in any event but I think the plan needs to needs to be built on needs to be renewed regularly every you know number of years needs to be reported on annually and needs to be clear and outcome focused and something that's easily measurable as well but we certainly wouldn't want to see it prescribed within the within the bill itself words into your mouth but could you just clarify that for me you don't believe that keeping that there needs to be a description of what the bills trying to achieve on the bill that it can be covered in the plan is is that what you'll say or do you think there should be an overarching description which I think is what John was suggesting should be in the bill I think as James said I mean what the things that Mr Mason talks about is part of the day job is what we do every day and I think the plan needs to be as as flexible as possible to meet changing and ongoing needs. I kind of bring Stephen and then Mark. Yeah thanks I mean the bill necessarily should have high level aspirations so if it was going to have an objective it would need to be a high level objective I mean this framed it says improving outcomes for the Scotland's island communities and I think that's something that we could support the point that you made around retaining population it's obviously linked to jobs and opportunity as well I mean I don't think that's a high level aspiration any of us would disagree with if it was to to come forward but certainly bear in mind that the introduced this is a question on the plan the plan itself is clearly going to be very important for bringing in the detailed and specific objectives that's coming forward from the local authorities and I noticed in previous evidence sessions the word co-production was used a lot we would certainly agree with that the island's plan should be something that is co-produced between the local authorities and the the Scottish Government and that yes there should be specific chapters based on each local authority area and indeed perhaps within each local authority area for the specific smaller groups okay mark and then I'd like to get to move to John if I may mark I do understand why people particularly people who aren't lawyers might have the aspiration for something rather more specific but but it does have an objective as Stephen has said which is improving outcomes I think that's a good phrase I think it'd be very difficult to become more specific without leaving things out and whatever's left out can't be done so people will use its absence as a reason to say well you can't put that in so becoming specific I think is very dangerous in terms of the section on the plan especially as it's going to last for many many years and we can't predict now what will be coming up in five or ten years time the other thing is when when you become specific you tend to focus on the negative you tend to focus on correcting what's going wrong correcting islands with very small populations where the whole community is fragile and what you might want to do about it preserve and growing whatever it is and you tend to miss out the aspirational positive stuff there are huge opportunities in in our island communities to contribute not just to the well-being of the islands but to the well-being of scotland to extract enormous social and economic benefit and that tends to get missed out when you put in specific objectives because you tend to go with correcting the current ills rather than grasping that future that's very helpful answer I'm going to John if I may you know any piece of legislation the committee scrutinising it gets lobbied to put specific information on the face of the bill now we know that for instance transport the digital infrastructure access to health and social care and education are going to be addressed in the plan should they be specifically mentioned in the bill? I'd like to take all that and I just want to two people put their heads down when normally they've been quite happy to put their heads up. Mark your head is still up would you like to make eye contact Desi? It would do no harm to put in specific instructions from parliament to the government to do certain things for us please feel free. As long as it wasn't only that which was required. There was access to health and social care now we've already seen the integration take place if I come back to the phrase I tried earlier single purpose authority and I got no biters first time round could you comment on that please does that fit in with that general philosophy of say absolutely we would love to investigate that because we joined our council social services sub with the health board way before integrated joint board became a government prescription and since it became a government prescription it's held us back because it put another layer of governance in that and a and an effort for us where as before we were doing it and we'd love the opportunity to be as we are in energy and any many other things a real microcosm test bed a proving place for things that you know could be applied elsewhere in the country and we do think that the single purpose authorities we would call it because we don't want to miss out the third sector from that because we believe they're important here we could do something quite transformational for our people and make sure that every pound note that comes in to the community gets used to its best effect to provide better services should we pick up on it can I can I talk about consultation and it would probably just a brief answer because you have alluded to it and that's the level of consultation you would anticipate on the development of the islands plan how you'd go about that and I'll just bolt another one quickly then convener and that is the time frame for is it realistic the government talking about being laid before the Scottish Parliament within a year of the the act coming into force is that realistic mark you you signified you'd like to give an answer to an earlier question so maybe you could slip it in with the answer to this one as well thank you I think a year is yes we we mustn't we mustn't accept a bureaucratic slowness not to get on with things and if we get on with it it's more than long enough the islands obviously we would want the islands authorities and the key industry and public and voluntary sector groupings to be consulted directly by the government but we'd be there with our already well established systems of consulting with the communities in our island group to be used to do that by the government so it should it shouldn't be a problem going back if I may to the to the earlier question the answer is yes it the the agenda of a single public authority fits really well with this and I think there are there are two reasons one is that as public services develop in the way they are developing not just in Scotland but in other places as well where you have a geographically remote area there starts to become big disadvantages as you go for economies of scale and things start to become remote and start to move to Aberdeen and you know what have you but there is a scope there is scope for economies of scale through merging different public functions in the island group and it fits really well with autonomy so if we look at some of the most successful island groups in Europe which are a benefit not just to themselves but to the nations they are part of, Oland and Faroe leap to my mind I mean Faroe is a very successful place very good place to live very content population and draws virtually nothing from the dent Danish public sector spend really successful Oland the same and I'm familiar with a very successful council in a rural Finnish Lapland small population 50 000 and it does everything a Scottish unitary would do plus secondary health plus water plus sewage plus plus plus and works really well so it's an ideal solution for the more remote the more smartly populated I'm very just going to push somebody from Orkney to answer the question can the island plan be drawn up in a year Paul indicator I don't know it could be a simple answer the answer is yes and unequivocally I think it's that important to us that certainly the you know the the input from Orkney the commitment as demonstrated through the our islands our future campaign indeed with all three islands councils I wouldn't hesitate and saying certainly from our perspective that that's achievable obviously it's dependent on other other parties but the commitment would be 100 percent from I'm sure from the three islands councils you're saying yes and Stephen's holding his hand up I don't know if that's to say no there's no dissent yes John may have had his question answered so if you can keep whatever you're going to say quite brief yeah I'll keep it quite brief I think there's two questions being asked there that's the question can we consult in time the answer to that is unequivocally yes because we have good relationship with the third sector who do consult consultation exercises for us we have a very good community planning partnership whose consultation guidelines we use and we have were energetic and empowered community councils and will be established on 20 new county councils community councils sorry in in short order rather part of the question is do we have ideas for the plan and answer that is unequivocally yes as well Malcolm Burr I think mid the offer which we would echo that we could go away and write it for you if you want we have plenty of ideas we could put into it so it's a very much a yes to that I would want you to write that part of the plan but I'm sure we're going to move on to John if you're happy with those answers I'd like to move on to the next section which might scan to start off with and Liam it's going to incorporate the question you had so Mike would you like to start up please thanks convener I want to drill down into the specifics island proofing because this has proved a little bit problematic in the evidence sessions that we've had so far formal and informal part three of the bill places a duty on Scottish ministers and about in the annex of the bill about 60 different public authorities they're all listed including the councils of course to have regard to island communities and exercising their functions so to have regard to now the issue that we've been wrestling with is exactly what does this island proofing actually mean how would you do it we want to avoid a situation where somebody in Glasgow Edinburgh anywhere else out with the islands sits down in an organisation like Scottish water just just to give an example and um oh we've got an initiative I've got to think about Orkney or Shetland and great I've thought about that and I've ticked the box there because I've island proofed it how what is island proofing actually mean and how best do we go about it do we need to consult people who actually live on the islands for instance uh I'm going to start with Mark and then comes James if I may um I think we do need to in thinking about this draw a distinction between islands proofing in section or clause seven and impacts assessments in the later clauses and I'm only talking about clause seven um it's a it's a it's an attitude of mind if you imagine that you're a civil servant in a department or a government agency coming up with a some idea for improving whatever you think about communities in Scotland and how it might help all you have to do is have in your mind that there is a variety of communities in Scotland and that one extreme of the spectrum are the three island groups in the remote in the case of Shetland the most remote northern area with their particular issues and just have that in your mind it's not complicated and the the failsafe that makes it a simple process is communication just speak at an early stage in developing your policy with the relevant organiser with the relevant in our case the council the relevant island and say this is what we're thinking of doing does that sound sensible to you not a complicated process organisation initiative needs to speak either go there or speak to people who live on the island i'll give you i'll give you an example from recently which was skills development Scotland who came out later in the day than was ideal but not too late with a proposal for changing the funding of modern apprenticeship training not where the people lived you'd have to go to it and they changed the funding of travel in such a way that meant that nobody from Shetland would ever take part in a modern apprenticeship ever we picked up the phone i had a chat with the chief executive other people chatted and it was changed and the appropriate cost was put back their payments were put back in problem goes away dealt with wasn't complicated because they published before it was too late before it was cast in stone their proposals and the initiatives on us as well we've got to keep our eyes open what's going on and say to people excuse me a sec you're proposing that well hold on and wasn't it wasn't a difficulty in that case because all it says in the bill we have to interrogate the Scottish Government bill that's what we've got that's what we're doing to try and improve it if we can and so do you think that have regard to that simple phrase is strong enough yes i do because we would want to do this by dialogue and partnership working as we do with all the agencies and the government but the bottom line is i'm not afraid of judicial review if you can't prove to me you had sufficient regard to the particular circumstances of Shetland well off we go i'm concerned you that's twice you've mentioned legal matters James can i bring you in if i may the last thing we want is judicial review i think we can co-produce things and work you know forward from the beginning and if we have major pieces of primary legislation we would want to have a really good chance to engage with them secondary legislation there's another thing where people identify or where we identify knowledge of what's coming through but there's a lot of ministerial discretion and this is one of the things that we have the biggest problem with is where people could make a change for us but they don't have the confidence to do it i think if we set this properly in place people will have far more confidence to help us with the small things that may be an irritant to some but they're absolutely fundamental to our life in other ways for instance you know the heaps abs that came through the Scottish government before the money came to our council and we had really good outcomes it came through in a far more prescribed way more recently that we didn't have the people trained here so we missed the first 1.4 million pounds of benefit to the place with the greatest degree of fuel poverty in the country because we had to tick all these boxes that were inappropriate and really only really devised for things probably in the central belt or farther away and at that same time the the public money wasn't being spent to the best use so we want to make sure that if this comes through parliament that everybody is aware there's opportunities to do things differently in irelands at every level just if i make one before you do if i make can i i rather rudely part liam's question from earlier and i think if i don't bring him back in it he may make my life difficult so liam would you like to bring bring your question back in and and then mark i'll bring you in and i know just other people queuing i think i i i know you're on my home turf but i think you overstate my powers in these parts and i think what i was trying to draw out for the panel and particularly from the the ordinary delegation was the point around demonstrating what island proofing might be by applying it to cases in the past i think just picking up mark's suggestion there around apprenticeships i think i'd like to hear from the panel a description of some of those areas where legislation has been it to the to the detriment or policy being to the detriment in the islands that doesn't necessarily require additional resources to be spent because i think that the risk the example mark for that there a very good one is that it will play to the notion that simply this is about putting in additional resources in order to island proof policy when actually i think very often and there are examples certainly in the in the orny submission here that suggests it's not about additional resources is about tailoring the the legislation or the policy so that actually what you get is a better fit and a better delivery of the public objective public policy objectives for no more and potentially even less resource than's being spent at the moment would that be a fair characterisation and can you help me out with a few examples? Malcolm you you were nodding could you give us some examples so maybe i could come to each of you and and ask for a limited example please probably give many but i mean for whatever like this is me we we deliver public services on the edge i mean on the edge of the uk geographically as well as in terms of sustainability and it's probably never good to to define something by a negative but what what island proofing is not about advantaging or given advantage to the islands is about not applying disadvantage to the islands and things that are detrimental to us and things that could be quite easily and Liam's quite quite correct sometimes it's very easy sometimes it doesn't require spending a lot of money in fact very often it will save money if this is put in in the building blocks right at the very beginning i mean just another example of informal island proofing was was quite quite recently the the islands heads of planning were involved in the very early stages of a national review of scottish planning policy which resulted in the flexibility being built in for the island situation i don't think that probably because the penny to do but it but it certainly it probably saved a lot of grief and a lot of a lot of money moving forward mark mark do you want to give an example or i've got a whole list here and i'll restrain myself but i but i want to come back if i could briefly uh a further point on mr rumbles point um let's have a detailed amendment then it will make it slightly better if you turn to clause nine b my suggestion to strengthen uh having regard to would be to delete the words that authority considers uh and insert are so there's a specific suggestion for a drafting change okay james oh you're going to give me a recent one that's very good is um the island screening assessment carried out by the minister for social security on the uh the implications of the new bill and particularly which led to no extra costs for anybody um and particularly picked up on the issues of fuel poverty and disability assistance issues in the islands and will in due course at the next level lead to a specific addressing of cold weather payments because of the difference in the way the weather and the so on so forth works in the islands it didn't cost anything and it was really really good on the other hand one i would like to mention to this audience because you are the guilty party um is the failure um to sufficient island island proof the recent requirement for qualifications for head teachers in a way that is seriously putting going to put at risk small island communities with small schools in the future we are very very worried about what what has happened um and that would have cost nothing to a violent proof that properly james you asked for a retrospective so i'm going to go along we've talked to scotish housing policy and if our real intent of this bill is to retain island population and things i've got no problem with the system whereby different categories of people get different awarding schemes and i've got no problem with the movement of people across the country but if you've got people on a small island and that island need isn't met first in housing policy you can have the crazy situation where people from an island need to move to another island or main in scotland to get a house and i think that's really true at the moment with the situation we hear about right now in aran and young people particularly need to be able to know that they're going to get a house in their own area so i think we need to just some of these things could be island proofed in a way that gave a much better result than you could ever imagine. Steven do you want to to give an example? Yes thanks i meant to say a bit i'll refer to our consultative response which goes into some detail on lots of issues but i mean think like early years of directive support the bedroom tax has been mentioned previously these things give us problems recycling and the affordable warmth the lack of support for green electricity gives us problems and indeed if we're going to look at the ferries plan we supplied a chapter and some verse as well for the ferries plan but it didn't get incorporated in it and that's causing us problems now as well but if i could also go back to Mr Rumble's question about the the pay regard to i mean clearly as a spectrum by which he can pay regard to things and the existing already in the policy memorandum companies bills there's meant to be consideration of islands that's clearly not working for us what we're moving to with the suggestion of the impact assessments is something more akin to an equality issue and we can see that equality considerations works so this gives us more confidence but the question is do you need to consult with the islands communities yes you probably do co-production is the word here again and the islands councils as the democratic representatives of the communities would like to be consulted in the first instance and i would like to make sure the the point that there's no really a distinction between councils and communities in our areas as you might find in the the larger authorities we're a a community of 20 000 people and i would say the council this by no means distant from its community and anybody you can accompany me to the supermarket and just experience how close we are to the community and its representations anytime paul are you are you happy that sufficient examples are given or would you like in fairness i'll give you the opportunity to give one if you want thank you convener yeah i'm in this this very building we're seated in today as an example and is referred to within the submission whereby current building regulations most carbon most carbon efficient way of heating um these buildings according to the standard method used for energy modelling buildings to achieve regular regulatory or compliance is to install LPG as a secondary heat source now the council um not just for this building but with the curcwl strummness primary school in the halls of residence we're we're having to import all this LPG at a great cost for no apparent reason given quite a number of cases under the building regulations and understand that building regulations is um something which is subject to review by by scotish government but i'd just like to make one point and forgive me if i'm preempting you here when when i talk about the importance of guidance am i am i allowed to speak about that or importance guidance this the guidance for we are covering it um so maybe we could come back to that absolutely can i can i just say your point about about gas already being made and picked up by the committee on on one of the places we went to today and and the fact that you can be disadvantaged for using renewable energy which we saw being generated this morning and and i don't think there's a single member of this committee who somewhere doesn't have a little green tint to their eye when they look at this lovely building and the facilities that are here i think uh it's something to be extremely proud of so if i can move on to jamie which is the next question thank you convener a good evening panel um i think it's an appropriate time probably to talk about uh the island impact assessments at this stage uh to develop the concept of island proofing so-called island proofing the bill as it stands will affect 66 public authorities which enclose everyone from Scottish ministers at one level to nhs orcany a very local authority another and everything in the middle including national bodies uh which govern all of scotland the bill as it stands requires them to consider uh and develop an impact assessment to um any development delivery or redevelopment of any policy strategy or service it's quite wide ranging my question is is what happens if after that impact assessment it has been identified that such policy change or change their service or change their strategy has identified a potential negative effect on island communities the bill thereafter only states you have to report that you've produced an impact assessment there's no reference to what happens next so how would you deal with that scenario where you had done an island impact assessment or a body listed had done an assessment which has produced this negative potential negative outcome there's no for example finance in this bill to to mitigate those negative effects of those policy decisions so what are your reviews on on the impact assessments and how it might how you might deal with them who'd like to leave a poll on that poll yeah i mean there's there's no provision within the bill for any form of review of any impact assessment and i think you know that that is a failing i think there has to be something um i don't think we want um a very cumbersome process we don't want something which is necessarily going to be um you know working intensive but i think there has to be something there i mean that there's always the failsafe position which mark is referred to judicial review none nobody wants to go down that route but i think by the same talk and we need we need a fair process of review which is transparent um at present there's no provision within the bill for any publication of impact assessments um you'll see from art nails council submission that we've stated that you know these should be published and i don't think there's there's any problem with that um it's it's fairly routine in these these kind of governmental things where we talk about transparency nowadays but um just what i've thought quite long and hard about what what would be um a proportionate um way of reviewing decisions but i haven't come up with anything myself just yet there's various examples i don't doubt that the bill manager will potentially look at but i do feel there has to be something well i'm definitely going to let you in because i'm fearing a judicial review if i don't if you've got do you have an answer the um uh we need to draw a distinction between the have regard to provision where as long as whoever it is can show they've had regard to that's sufficient and it will be very public that's good and then when we come on to the impact assessments we do have to be careful not to create an expensive bureaucratic process here that's going to slow everything down they need to be proportionate which is why when we come on to talk about the guidance that will be quite important but i think we also need to um have in the back of our mind that this is not about anybody telling the decision making bodies particularly the government what to do the decision will still rest with as as determined by parliament with whoever it rests with the point of the impact assessment is to um is to oblige them to consider uh the um as in clause 12 sub clause 3 the likely effects in the island areas and if there are particular effects to describe how they might be overcome or not because it's got to be proportionate you you can't put everything right every time and as long as it's open and it is really um as uh my reading of it would the the the impact assessments published under 12 3 would be public as long as the decision making body can show yes we thought about this yes we identified this and this is what we're going to do that's fine because that's an open process the political process will take place there'll be a public debate and so on and so forth and i suppose one of the things that's underlying what i'm saying is we're not seeking equality because that's impossible um what we're seeking is equity that it's reasonable and people have thought about things and can articulate that they've taken it into account so from my perspective um clause 12 3 is fine James you want to come out i appreciate your your view on that um it's fair to say in much of the evidence we've taken perhaps not from local authorities but from other stakeholders down to community level uh and even down to individual level uh their fear really is very much the impact assessments and island proofing as a concept will just be a text box exercise and if that report produces uh a potential negative outcome uh there's no real meat on the bone in the bill that anything will change it's just an identification of a negative potential outcome and it's there for down to the authority to decide to do whether to do anything about that or not it's quite possible there may be a financial implication to rectify that negative outcome and that will require funding from whichever source and this bill is not backed up in any way with any financial promises assistance support uh you know how do you feel about uh those organizations um not been able to uh to mitigate the negative effect of the policy decisions um the citizens of the islands involved are as important as the citizens of anywhere else and there doesn't need to be separate funding or separate consideration for them they should be thought about and any legislation or policy decisions um should have regard to their the quality of their life and their future as much as any other citizens so i don't think anything any special James do you want to add to that well i think we have to go and operate on a degree of trust but at the same time by doing that if the things are clearly identified you know people won't be able to stand in the way of the really important issues that need to be changed okay i'm probably going to move on to the next question if i may to to mike i think you've got the next question um well it was covered earlier on actually okay so maybe i'd go to steward for me thank you very much community um let me say i take a slightly different view to my colleague jimmy i think the impact assessment might also identify positive outcomes as well as negative but there might be a negative aspect to identifying a positive outcome in the sense that somewhere that's remote but not an island and i just choose campel town might be better informed at how they are disadvantaged by a positive outcome for islands now that's a comment and i'll move on to it but i think there's a big issue in there that we need to think about perhaps um the mark said on several occasions have regard and i recognise it's been said and Malcolm bell said not disadvantage now the outcomes we're going to get to some extent in the island proofing going to be determined by ministerial guidance how light touch should the ministerial guidance be indeed should there be any at all and in particular should it be very flexible to allow different authorities there's a large number of them to perhaps develop their own and publish their own ideas as to how they will implement it so that they can do so in the context of their responsibilities rather than it being a centrally directed one it's a very big question but it might be a short answer who'd like to get with Malcolm would you like to start with that just very briefly i think i think the guidance does need to be clear needs to be concise and i think it needs to it's important to set out very clearly the process uh to be followed uh sorry yeah uh in in the sense that i think some of the thrust of the evidence that we've heard this evening is that a process that works in mill guy will not necessarily work in mill port so i'm going to challenge you do you really want one process to apply throughout the system and in all circumstances is that actually what you're trying to say to us well i think yeah i think it's possible to to set out the outcomes and the the standards you expect i mean the the detail of the process may well vary but i think that the standards could be the same anywhere i mean i think that i think to work to the same standard what we want to work to a process that's appropriate to the context is that a fair representation what you're saying thank you others steven i'll bring you in and then i would like to go back to to to mic to ask a little point on detail if i may steven i just want to take this chance to say coproduction again because i think if coproduction is used here that will ensure a degree standard led by the local authorities engaging in this i'd also like to touch on the point you you made us a comment about the what about cambleton i think when we set out in this campaign we were always very clear that the whilst we may be pathfinders for islands in channel we would be delighted for the the benefits of what we were doing to apply to other islands and indeed that's what's happened but i think that any adverse issues for rural communities that we might identify as island groups i don't think the government would go and wantonly prejudice the rural community whilst giving us an advantageous situation so equally i think that the in supporting the islands through the islands bill rural communities are going to benefit their substantial amount as well okay mike can you um i appreciate what's being to the open islands and the shetland islands here but when we were on mul people that gave us informal evidence certainly um felt that it wasn't just the councils that needed to be consulted on island proofing but you need to go further down the line um it wouldn't be sufficient for the people on the island of mul for our guy on a good council to be the consultee but similarly so in your island groups should we not just make sure that when we're island proofing that we don't just consult the councils but also go further than that and consult people living on the individual islands that is that it's effective paul paul you are nodding do you want to absolutely you know i think you would have to if i mean just in the same way that if um ortney islands council was um looking at any of its policies it would you know or even considering anything you know in the process of island proofing it would consult with the community planning partners and its community groups and i think this all goes back to the guidance and how important the guidance is and the present minister for the islands and transport rooms of use of has certainly made very strong and vocal representations to the fact that he anticipates the island strategic group which has the six islands authorities take part in will have an important part to play you know in the production of that guidance and uh you know that you'll see from the submission there's there's a number of things which ortney islands council has certainly put forward as distinct issues which we feel should be incorporated within that guidance um you know the articles 174 170 of the lisbon treaty and when when we say that we're not talking about seeking to transpose european legislation into the guidance what we're talking about is looking at the principles themselves and just bringing them basically because you know why reinvent the wheel there's a tent and the template there to a certain degree there are principles which have been established at a very high level which can you know be referred to when you know that guidance is drawn up now i see both steven and james want to come in i'm afraid i'm only going to let one of you in um who will it be will it be steven yeah i think that the democratic mandate or the local authority and indeed the community councils shouldn't be missed out here and that the the consultation with other communities of interest other islands should be done through the community the local authority and the community council because let's face it the the bill has the duty upon the local authority to pay regard to island communities so this is something that should happen anyway so that's kind of logical cascade through there i want to come in very briefly certainly for shetlands because there's no other body on the island that has the democratic legitimacy that the council has i mean and quite clearly we would we would consult further on i mean even even community councils i don't think there's a single community council in shetland who has been elected in a competitive election so i think the the the council undoubtedly has a democratic mandate in order to to carry out this this consultation sorry james i'm not election i'm going to move on very briefly if i may to the next section before i come to richard who's got the next set of questions just for completeness i'm going to say the scotland act 1988 awtney and shetland were fixed as two of the 73 constituencies for the Scottish parliament for some reason the western isles was ignored i i am assuming that you absolutely believe that they should be part and have the same protections as you and if you're going to say no i'm not ready for that so we're taking the answer is yes we're all agreed yes okay i'm going to move on to the next section which is richard thank you convener marx said earlier that there was 40 years in local government very boringly i was a councillor from 1976 to 2012 in lannachire a some of 36 years and then moved on to the scotland once so i think i'm beating you by a year or a number of years anyway you'll remember the many boundary changes uh as i do 2004 brought in the three or four member wards that means that populated islands must be placed in an electoral ward which also contains a significant proportion often the majority of mainland population i know orton and shetland you know it slightly doesn't affect you but it does i would suggest so this has led to concerns that distinct interests of island communities may not be fully represented in council discussions the bill proposes to make an exception to rule for local government electoral wards to allow areas with inhabited islands to return one or two members instead of the three or four what do you think in regards to those proposals who'd like to go with that mark you're off not we are not the only people proposing this but they are very much our proposals um we see the reason for three and four member wards not not good a problem with that um we don't think that there needs to be any change to the equality of representation and we don't think there needs to be any change to rules about who can stand as a candidate or anything like that it's a very simple proposal and in our case the most obvious example is we've got one wall oh and we've got lots of islands that are part of mainland as in shetland's mainland um and and they'll have to be because they're too small to and they're too far from anywhere else but we've got one ward which we call the northern isles but actually it's a three member ward and the two northernmost islands sorry the three northern most islands yell unst and fepler could justify two on their own the eastern islands scare uh wall say in scary could justify one on their own now in the last council we had a counselor on unst who represented with his colleagues scaries there was no council living on scaries to go to an evening meeting in scaries he had to drive to the ferry take the ferry to yell drive across yell take the ferry ferry to mainland drive across mainland take the ferry to scaries or wall say and then try and get home again well they didn't happen um so we want the ability just to split that because they do justify a counselor of their own and geography would make it so much easier for the counselor to represent them so that so we're very supportive of that okay does somebody is it a problem in on opening on something we've discussed really yet even as a council we're interested in the concept we weren't very keen on moving to the situation we've got a present but we do have a better representation for our islands by the number of counselors the represent because we've got we've got six island counselors from people outside the mainland which is quite a strong lobby so we want to we would need to think about this very carefully but we're very keen that we don't have a one-size-fits-all or forced to go in those directions without really good consideration of the situation so basically you would have a consultation with your local areas local counselors you know in the very point that you've made mark that is you know the somebody who stays away up there down there my view is that someone who's representing an island should stay in an island or or should be you know and and something we rather now you know and yes there there won't be one-size-fits-all but both all the counselors who are affected by this would stand and consult and also be happy that the number of their counselors because in Lanarkshire we went up seven seven counselors from 70 to 77 in North Lanarkshire and I was opposed to that but basically in the islands if we went up a number of counselors you'd be quite happy overall Mark. Be happy with the principle it was possible but at the moment we don't have a particular need for that because the with with the ability to to have one and two rather than three and four the current ratio would work for us but if it didn't work the principle of being able to do it would be a good one. Okay Jamie wants to come in and then we'll move on to the next slide. Thank you it's just a brief follow-up on that I think one of the pieces of feedback we got was that you're looking for flexibility in that what works on Orkney may not work in Shetland but works in Shetland may not work on Arran and the mainland there so would you agree or disagree with the the concept of that this bill should provide you empower you the ability to have more flexibility in how you structure your councils? Yes, Mark. You could argue maybe should have gone further and allowed five member wards in some cases of them and there might be some you know some way of where that would have been affixed but absolutely the principle is welcomed I agree with Mark it will have limited benefit to Shetland apart from the example that that he gave but it's good to have the flexibility. James? The system of multi-member wards was devised for party politics and I don't know what would happen if party politics became more a thing on the islands it isn't particularly at the moment and I don't know how that would work but I think for us to have the opportunity to explore and see how best to get representation is you know I think that would be for a discussion for a future date but leave us with this wide opportunities we can and I think the local solution will come through. Okay before I move to Stephen I think John's got a point he'd like to ask that. This morning concerns expressed about powers being given to the councils because they don't know what independent councillor stand for and there was quote no accountability can you comment on that? Mark constitutional lawyer the accountability of every councillor however elected is through the ballot box and direct to their electors. There is the question of you know a direction of travel that we'll see certainly with party politics regardless of what that is people will know a broad slate of issues. How is that addressed because it was a genuine concern I was expressed by a number of people this morning. Yeah so do I need to repeat that? Yeah I mean I think the answer is very very much up to the electorate. If the electorate wants a party political council we're in this obviously the position that Orney is in party politics has never really taken off in local government and when it has been attempted invariably almost invariably it's the independence that went through so clearly the electorate wants to have an independent council whatever you know what's in all of that's the view of it but that's what they vote. I'll let James in and then perhaps we can move on to the next one and I know Stephen you are going to feature in the next line of questioning so James have come in. Yeah we have an election every five years people go door to door every house no one is not touched by the process that we go through and with our mostly independent council what I would say is every division in the chamber that I've been in for the last 14 years has reflected the real sense of our community. So if there's a very tight vote you know perfectly well the community is very tight and I think it's really reflective and I think it's truly representational because when you take the amalgamation of the 21 of us with different views you get a very clear position of where the community is and I think that's been really useful and that's why I think we can be of use to the government to do something different. Yes thank you for that it's been passing streams that issue having been raised this morning if we didn't in turn raise it with your channel so you'll understand that. Thank you. Right the next section Peter I think you're leading on that and I just put Stephen on morning that you may be the first one in here. Yes good evening gentlemen I'm going to speak a wee bit about marine development and you were obviously very keen to get involved in that earlier on but first of all I would like to say that I've been impressed by your great enthusiasm for the bell the whole panel has shown a great enthusiasm and great vision as to how this bell could make a difference to your communities and I'm impressed with that and you know I need to say that right up first up but the question the marine development thing the bell provides a regulation making power for the Scottish ministers to establish a marine licensing scheme for development activities within the Scottish island marine area. Now there are some differences here because already Orkney and Shetland have many of these powers already so I assume you agree that this regulation making power is something that you wish to continue with but my main question is what is your experience of this marine development power and what can you give to to to expand the learning experience to other areas that don't already have that? To go first but if you'd like to go first because you mentioned it earlier I mean I think that both Orkney and Shetland would say that it's a very very positive experience that we have and the one that's benefited our communities we've managed to through the marine licensing the works licensing powers we've had to manage sustainable development of potentially controversial activities oil pots and do it in a way that's maintained the environment and benefited our economies over a period of more than 40 years so it's a very positive experience and one I would commend to the rest of Scotland. I think that the island's councils do have a demonstrable expertise that could be shared we have a very sophisticated harbour operation that monitors the waters around our islands 24-7 and in the past I've always joked that we have one navy in the form of our tugs and our ferries with our early warning system and we also have an air force because we operate the internal air service here as well so we're more like a small state than the most local authorities. In terms so what would it mean to us the provisions in the bill? Well I mean we have the power over harbour area which is scatwa flow and the Kurtwell Bay area and we would like to enjoy that power over the the distance out to the 12 mile limit so it would mean it would be a incremental move for us but it would certainly fit very well with the idea of an integrated process for developers coming forward to us if we could control the marine licensing over the island area and indeed controlled the revenues and management powers of the crowning state over that area as well so that the consenting licensing and planning process could be done through a effectively a one-stop shop with the local authority. Paul and then I'd like to get a mark if I may please. I think you know so far as experience goes I mean when the agriculture Scottish Government we're looking to transfer aquaculture over to the planning system they I'm engaged with certainly our council or Ireland's council extensively about our knowledge of works licenses and how to transfer those responsibilities over to aquaculture so I think there's quite a pedigree there and I think that pedigree is acknowledged indeed through the engagement we've had to date with Marine Scotland and now Crown Estate Scotland in respect of looking for the further devolution you know of the marine environment and particular at the moment with respect to pilot schemes where a very good engagement recently with Crown Estate Scotland was a view to moving pilot schemes forward. I think you know it's just joining everything up you know when you look at the big picture and I think as Stephen said earlier it's all about maximising efficiency and making the consent process a one-stop shop and I think the pilot scheme certainly in respect to the Crown Estate will give us further experience in that regard and indeed help Scottish Government potentially with the framing of the Crown Estate legislation. Is there an expectation that the new powers under the new Bell will be different from what you have already you mentioned I'm not sure how far out your powers go at the moment the proposal is to go to 12 nautical miles is that what you have at the moment or is this going to increase the power that you have over the control of the seabed. I'm happy to answer that if you like. To the to the age bit Orkney's limit was just a bit in curple bay and party scupper flow we need to make sure that we go out to the full extent of that and actually do something and you know in the same way that we would like in some respects that SNH was moved you know to Enverness if there's a chance for the Crown Estate to be moved to the periphery I think that we have better result for all of us and you know if we have expertise in that we'll be keen to share it with other coastal areas. Sorry, Mark do you want to come in there? There's a particular answer and then there's a general answer and the general answer goes to the heart of what we're talking about tonight. The particular answer is that the Zetland County Council Act has been an enormous success for Shetland and we'll stick with it. We don't need the powers that are in the Bill because they are based on Zetland County Council Act. There is one tiny amendment we'd suggest which is around Clause 193 C&D where we think as well as saying that grants that predate the new legislation, a variation of grants that predate the new legislation should be allowed to survive as well but that's a small matter that can be dealt with in paperwork. The Zetland County Council Act has been central to the good management of the marine environment in Shetland in the face of substantial exploitation for oil and gas and fishing and aquaculture, all of which pose risks as well as benefits. It's been central to them delivering those benefits and the economic benefit of all of them for Shetland. It's been a huge success and it's been very straightforward for the council to implement. There has been no problem in implementing it. It's well within the capacity of a primary authority, any council in Scotland to deliver that sort of thing so it's great. The more general answer is that this is just the start and now we come back again to the island's plan that's in the legislation. We will want to explore in coming years in a way we couldn't go firm on today but we could in terms of the Crown Estate that we want two things are running here for the island authorities, the archipelagos that are just islands. The sea is what it is, is it? We're not about land, we're about sea, our wealth and our economy and our communities based on the sea so it's vital for the benefit of the community, the benefit of Scotland and the proper exploitation that that authority with the capacity that's focused on the sea has as much power and autonomy as possible on the sea in the seabed to extract the maximum benefit with the greatest security around environmental sustainability. So we are going to start with the Crown Estate, we want management of the Crown Estate in our area but it's not going to stop there, there's a duplication with Marine Scotland, we want delegation of that so that we can deliver a one-stop shop to developers and industry in exploiting the sea. We've got a very successful shellfish management scheme that's not replicated elsewhere, it's a good example of what you can do and we want to do more of that and without going into great detail now if I just tell you that our vision is farro and research what control they have over fishing and we may well go there in years to come. Okay just before I move to Liam I can just clarify something and then I'll probably come back to Peter if I may in a minute. My question to you is obviously with taking all the income from the Crown Estate I don't have a view on that, we'll come the liabilities that go with it as well and the question that some people have posed is whether some of the smaller islands, not necessarily you, would have the ability to carry out the enforcement and the licensing required with in some cases quite minimal income so it appears that one size doesn't fit all so my first question to you is would you agree that one size doesn't fit all and how would you make sure that Bill reflects the needs of the other islands around Scotland when it comes to the Crown Estate? Mark, do you want to start on that? Start off, these sorts of things should be a power, not a duty. People for whom it is appropriate and useful to take on that level of autonomy should be empowered to do so but the duties and responsibilities where they outweigh the benefit and the practicality should not be forced on. Okay so that was my first question and rather like a question that was raised earlier this evening one of the issues that we had put in front of ourselves today I think one of the meetings was the issue with the planning at the moment feels remote from the fishermen who are actually trying to operate and make it work would you do you think you'd be in a position if aquaculture was superimposed upon fishing which may be very coastal it would it wouldn't have a negative sorry that's a double negative there would be no impact of that aquaculture on local fishermen and the trade they're carrying out. Mark do you want to go with that? If we're talking about town and country planning then that's already done. I think they were suggesting that the marine development and also aquaculture may impede what they're trying to do around the coast when they're fishing as well. Absolutely right and that's why we will we want a one-stop shop based in in our case Shetland where we know there was a proposal recently for the siting of offshore a potential site for offshore wind generation that was right slap bang on top of the best fishing ground west of Shetland we knew that and we would never have proposed that site because we're in you know we wouldn't even needed to ask the fishermen that but of course we would and so we think that the one-stop shop locally with the local knowledge and the intimate connection with local bodies we work very very closely with the Fisherman's Association and the Shellfish Association and we're ideally suited to avoid that sort of inadvertent conflict. Okay I'm going to bring Liam in before I let James come in. Thanks Cymru, I'm going to tee James up. I think with with characteristic warmth of hospitality James threw in the offer of hosting Crown and State Scotland which had me thinking not so long ago there were concerns around where Wave Energy Scotland was going to be cited and disappointingly it didn't have a real presence in Orney notwithstanding Orney's leading Wave Energy. Do you think within this bill there needs to go hand in hand not just where decision power's at rest but actually some form of relocation policy for civil service jobs as well which we haven't really seen over the last number of years? Yes I would say certainly I mean when it came to the social services stuff I would love to have seen a cohort of these jobs go to the Western Isles because I think that really fits well. We don't always want to divide everything up a third and a third and a third among we want to do the thing that's right for each local community when it comes to who's been speaking about the the marine planning marine and terrestrial planning must join up somewhere I don't think for a local area it joins up in Edinburgh I think it joins up in the local area so that all all the engagement with all the stakeholders can come and we've just really recently with the Pentonforth and Ortony Water there's a joint project with Highland Council in Ortony that not only won a Scottish planning award but won a national planning award because we are really quite far ahead in some of these things and for us to to drop the ball at this stage would be unforgivable we must make sure that we bring that ashore so that so that we actually get you know something happening locally in these areas and we've got also watched with the Crown Estate where the revenues goes because the revenues must follow the activity if it doesn't follow the activity it becomes a farce because it could be a disbenefit to a community if they don't get the revenue for the for the energy and work they put in to making sure and you know the seabed and the marine is our future there's an awful lot around here and we've got to make sure that we capture the ben the full benefits from these things I'm going to bring peace back in and then I'd like to get a brief answer to his question then move on to that it's just it's more a statement really I mean you're obviously very enthusiastic for these powers and you obviously want more powers than that's proposed in the bill you want powers over agriculture which isn't in the bill and the Crown Estate money as well so it's more a statement actually just to say that you're very enthusiastic but you would like it to go much further so Stephen Stephen can come in on that and then we're going to move on to the next section because I am mindful of the audience and I would like to get them involved as well I would certainly emphasise what enthusiasm I think it's a it's a panel we're enthusiastic and passionate about the whole subject here and keen to see the islands in power but you mentioned the Crown Estate Revenue so it's something that we want and it's something that we haven't been promised already we would say that this is something that we have spoken about and negotiated at length with the Scottish Government through the whole empower and Scotland as a community process and I would refer to pages 37 and 38 in that August document as where it speaks about the central role of the local authorities in the managers and the disbursers or community benefit in their areas and the Crown Estate revenues as a head chunk to that process explicitly being the revenues that's accrued in the area for each local authority okay I think we're going to leave leave that point there and move on to the the final questions which are from John thanks convener and last but not least finances which are something dear to my heart we've already clarified obviously that this bill does not deal with where would the money come from for a new school or a new hospital or a new ferry but where the finances are relevant is more around the administrative side of things and we have the financial memorandum which mentions various figures and I saw in Shetland's a submission that you were wondering if £5,000 was sufficient for the annual progress update which would be something that the Scottish Government is doing and I also wondered another figure that jumped out at me was the £30,000 which is says the local authority would each local authority would incur because of consultation representing the island communities and so on so I just wonder if you have any comments either on these two figures or on the financial memorandum generally at James then I'm going to come to Malcolm yeah it's one of the things I'm really quite interested in because people look at the costs but they don't look at the other side of what the government would get back because if you invest in the periphery the amount of tax take and that receipt that the government gets as it goes from pocket to purse all the way back to the centre is far greater than invest in elsewhere so I just want to make sure that people get there in their understanding investing in a strong periphery of the country is really secure in the centre and it's actually bringing bringing revenue back so these figures I would suggest are triflingly small in relation to what this benefit could come from this where the committee is coming from and I'm coming from totally happy to accept that point that they're triflingly small the question is should they be bigger is it realistic for the government to expect your council to do all that work for £30,000 I mean that's really thank you very much for giving us that opportunity on this back in John because yeah we have already expended a lot of money on the our answer for your campaign we have joined with the the other two island authorities and we put in a joint part of money on more than one occasion because we believe this is so important to our future that our commitment to this I think you can see is wholehearted but we do think that you know for the value that's here and if there was any way to support this further from the centre what I'm really saying is I think you get the value back in spades in terms of value I think Shetland already is a net contributor to the public purse in the UK but I mean I think your comments around the £5,000 was more to do with giving it just sufficient promotion I mean we think generally the memorandum is pretty reasonable but I think we felt £5,000 in terms of giving it sufficient drive and focus was probably just a bit on the low side in terms of the 30,000 that's something that we already spend as part of the day job anyways and is one of our budget lines in terms of the consultation that we already do carry out. I'm just going to come to Jamie for a final small question but when I do that I'm going to ask James and Malcolm just if there is a key fact that we have not got across during the course of this evening if you'd like to drill down on it now with your team and just be ready to give us a key fact at the end so I'm going to ask Jamie to ask his question. It's actually very very relevant to what the convener has asked to do I'm quite keen to hear and it can be very brief if there's one thing you could change about this bill you know knows your time to get it out there what would you change about this bill in its current form. I find that immensely helpful. So Jamie I think my question are the same it's something you'd change something you'd add I'd say who'd like to go on that? James? Well just I mean we've covered it at the beginning was the enabling powers we want them to be absolutely secure absolutely it's fundamental to the benefit of the bill for us the second thing is the status of the the island groups as in permanence so that the bill actually means that they are there in perpetuity really important for us and the fact that we can do something for community benefit to really enable our communities to excel and be more than they are today and if we have these three things enshrined in the bill I think the bill will work for us. Okay Malcolm to be entirely fair I must give you the opportunity to mention three things and not just the one that I suggested so Malcolm do you mention three things if you'd like? We're generally happy with the bill I think as we've already stated I think if we were to add something to it just to answer the question directly I think it would be I think that we wish to be a statutory consultee to the national island plan and also I think we ought to be consulted on the guidelines that are forthcoming so that would be the two major the must-haves that we would like to see in it. Okay that really concludes agenda item one and what we have to do as a committee is agree something formally prior to our next meeting which we're going to do straight away and then I'm going to conclude the meeting as a whole and then go to questions and answers from the audience and I'll explain how that's going to work but first of all I'd like to thank the the panel for coming and it is quite clear that you are you know completely committed to achieving the best you can from this and thank you very much so I'm going to very much for coming also it's a joy to have you and it's you know this is really useful for us well that's very kind of you to say that we're enjoying our trip that's much is sure so I'd like to move on briefly to agenda item two which is a decision on taking business in private. The Scottish Government has asked the committee for a comment on parliamentary timescales for scrutiny of the future government's draft climate change plans it's proposed that the committee will consider its response to the government in private at its next meeting on the 4th of October that's this Wednesday are members of the committee agreed okay that's agreed and that therefore concludes the formal committee business and I'd now like to close the meeting.