Hello and welcome to the 17th meeting of the committee in 2014. Can I ask everyone present to switch off their mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they effect the broadcasting system? Some committee members will refer to tablets during the meeting and that's because we provide the papers in digital format. Y agenda item one is anquiry into flexibility and autonomy of local government. We have one panel giving evidence this morning. I'd like to welcome the Minister, Derek Mackay, Minister for Local Government and Planning, and Robin Haines from the Scottish Government's local government division. Welcome, gentlemen. Good morning, Minister. Would you like to make any opening remarks? Good morning. Thank you, convener. I'm very grateful for the committee inviting me to give further evidence on behalf of the Scottish Government further to my letter and submission of 28 March, which sets out the Government's thinking and policy direction in relation to the inquiry's remit and aims. The forthcoming referendum and the prospect of democratic renewal that it brings is demonstrating that the people of Scotland do have a real interest in local decision making and the determination of public service provision. This committee's inquiry is an important part to play as we consider which powers and responsibilities might be best determined at local level and which might more naturally reside with the Scottish Government and Parliament. The default position of the Scottish Government is described by the First Minister's Lerwick Declaration in which he confirmed her commitment to subsidiarity and local decision making. However, we must recognise that we're not starting from a blank sheet of paper. There are established structures in place in public services. They deliver very much the bedrock of our society. There is most certainly at this time a constitutional opportunity. In this regard, the three island councils that joined forces to establish our Islands Our Future campaign have been the first to engage. As you know, we've been working closely with the leaders and senior officials from Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles councils with the final meeting of the islands area ministerial working group taking place in Kirkwall last week. The island councils came with a clear aspiration of what additional powers they wanted. Together, we've given careful consideration and thought to which level of government might be more suitable for a particular responsibility given the potential risks and benefits. The Scottish Government considered such things as whether any such measure would empower local communities rather than simply being a transfer of responsibility between public bodies, command a high level of public support within the community, lead to improvements in the quality of services, represent value for money and not impose costs on other communities, enable Scottish ministers and councils to fulfil their duties of accountability. The conclusion of this work will be announced by the First Minister when the prospectus for empowering our island communities is launched. Working with our islands our future campaign and formulating a package of increased autonomy for island communities to ensure that Scotland's islands can address the challenges they face and seize the opportunities for economic growth has been very important. It will relate wholly to Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, but my discussions with Highland, Argyll and Bute and North Ayrshire councils show that nearly all of the measures will apply to the other island areas in Scotland. Although this first piece of work fulfilling our commitment to subsidiarity relates to Scotland's 93 inhabited islands, the Lerwick Declaration applies equally to all other parts of Scotland. For example, cities and their regions play a central role in driving economic growth. The Scottish Government is committing to working individually and collectively with Scotland's cities to optimise that growth for the benefit of the whole of Scotland. I could go on about the approach we are taking in town centres as well. I believe the approach we have taken in the island areas working group is the right one. As the Government's evidence to this inquiry notes, the optimal balance between central and local responsibilities must take account of not just what is required in an area, but what taxpayers, voters and the users of public services expect to receive. Of course, the ability of local communities to determine the services they want depends on the capacity and the finances to deliver those services. This is why we have protected local government budgets as best we can from the recent overall reductions to public spending and eliminating almost eliminating ring fencing of budgets so as to provide local government with greater autonomy in how they spend their budgets. One aspect of the committee's present inquiry, which also relates to your report from the 2012 local government elections, connects directly with the Government's present consultation on Scotland's electoral future as primarily seeks views on how we can improve the quality of democracy in Scotland by encouraging wider engagement and participation in elections. Eminently, I am looking forward to the introduction to Parliament of the Community Empowerment Bill, which, upon enactment, will help to shift the balance of power more towards communities. It will give them new rights to have their voices heard in relation to the design and delivery of public services in the community planning process and their own initiative. It will make sure that their proposals to take over public sector assets are properly considered amongst other areas. The bill will also reinforce the Scottish Government's message that we expect all local authorities and other public bodies to continue to support communities to become more empowered and to participate in the decisions made by those bodies. Those authorities, which are already doing well, should not find the new bill onerous, but it will make others catch up to that best practice in conclusion, convener. We are entering an exciting time for local democracy in Scotland, the opportunity we have created this constitutional moment and the potential transfer of all reserve powers to this Parliament creates a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to empower our communities as well. Democracy is first and foremost about people and communities, not parliaments, councils or governments, and a modernised democracy must have the delivery of improved local services that me local needs at its core. Thank you. Thank you very much, Minister. The committee or some members of the committee have, of course, embarked on a wee tour of Europe to look at some of the setups there in Germany, Denmark and Sweden. Obviously, local government there has a constitutional and legislative protection and independence. How do you envisage, saying, local government's constitutional place and what can be done to ensure that legislative protection that so many municipalities and local authorities have in other places? I think that that is an absolutely key point. The UK, of course, does not have a written constitution in that context. The rights of local government cannot be enshrined in a constitution that does not exist in a UK term, but with the prospect of an independent Scotland and a written constitution, we could protect local government in such a constitution, and that is very much the position of the Scottish Government. Some would argue that a bill in Parliament would suffice, but it would not, because one bill supersedes another bill in terms of this place in this Parliament, and the opportunity we would propose to protect local government within a written constitution in an independent Scotland of course would set out how we will arrive at that final constitution, but we would absolutely propose local government have its place within that. Over and above that, compliance with the European Charter is important. UK is a signatory to that. Therefore, Scotland de facto is also one, happy, content with the report that was received in terms of the monitoring of that European committee, which showed that the partnership approach we take in Scotland is received very positively, and we would continue to apply the principles of the European Charter as it relates to local government. As we have been taking evidence here from elected members, we have heard from most folks that they would like to ensure that local communities are more empowered than they currently are. We have heard from people that there are impediments to transferring resource and power to local bodies, whether that be community councils or others, and yet when we have questioned them and what those impediments are, it has been very difficult to get an answer. Can I ask you if there are any legal impediments for further transfer down to community councils or whatever level it may be? Would the Government be flexible in terms of looking, removing any legislative barriers to allow local authorities to do so? We, through a range of different methods, can empower communities. As I have highlighted, I think that the community empowerment bill will further assist with this. Individual actions include support for community ownership service, the work that we are doing with COSLA and improvement service around supporting community councils in the work there. Participatory budgeting, we do not propose to legislate for participatory budgeting, but it is absolutely something we would encourage local people having an act of saying how resources are spent. There is a national model and good practice and engagement as well. Your question is more than just about engagement consultation, it is about participatory democracy. That is why I want to improve engagement and turnout in elections as well as not just from one election to the next, but how public sector bodies engage day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month with communities. We are absolutely supportive. Of course, good accountancy arrangements and governance and legislative arrangements need to ensure that there are checks and balances and safeguards in place, of course. That said, there is the power of wellbeing and this principle of seniority about trying to take decision-making as close to the people as possible. Community councils have referenced that it is important, but so are a number of other community anchor organisations. It might be the Housing Association, it might be the Development Trust, it might be the local mums and toddlers action group that want to deliver projects and when being powered to get on and do things. That is why we have to be quite creative and not too rigid about how certain services and projects are delivered. More work to come in participation of public services through the community empowerment bill, but yes is the answer to your question. We are more than happy to receive identification of what, as you describe, impediments are to progress in this area, because we sometimes hear there are barriers to progress that when we push it don't exist or may exist in people's minds of what they think they are, that said there's good reasons to have governance and accountability and finance structures to ensure that we're transparent around how public resources are used. And as another example of good practice, you may have local area committees and so on at a local level that can engage people in the day-to-day decisions rather than the traditional top-down approach. Hopefully that answers your question, community. It does, Minister. Cameron Buchanan, please. Thank you very much, Minister. When we are travelling around, we've decided that a different degree of flexibility would be welcome. We thought community councils up in the north that have different things like that. Do you think there's anything... Would you give them different powers and how would you determine this different sort of flexibility? It's not just community councils. We'd rather focus on community councils at one point, but in fact there's all sorts of other things and the Western Isles had different approaches like you said, mother and toddlers and planning committees and things like that. How would you empower them? Was there any way you'd try and do that? I think there's two key points there that I would identify. First, I would like to go back to my comments that we're trying to create the right conditions for success for any local group to take forward their outcomes-focused agenda. What are the projects that deliver on the pillars of public service reform around prevention, integration, great, better use of people and workforce and improved performance? So in that sense, whatever the structure in the organisation, we want to create the right conditions for success. I don't propose a whole new review of the powers of community councils, but that said, we do propose to give them greater involvement in areas such as, for example, common good funds and the transparency and decision-making around assets there. So yes is the answer. We want to support that empowerment agenda to a range of our community organisations. Now, the second point around what is being described, I suppose, as differential devolution, maybe different local authorities or different areas having different powers, may actually make sense because they seek different things. The cities are seeking a slightly different agenda from the towns, who are seeking a slightly different agenda from the islands clearly, who even though they have things in common also have differences. So the government is now embarking on that journey very positively. And I think the island's work has been a trailblazer. I think that the COSLA commission will help inform the next stages as well of how local authorities and local partnerships organise themselves in this very exciting democratic journey. So the government is very open-minded to approaches of what could be described as differential devolution, but not power and structural change for its own sake, but very much focused on outcomes and what will make the biggest difference in local people's lives. But I'm not legislating particularly. I'm not legislating in general. Different communities with different legislation. That's right. I understand it. Absolutely. So in some places it's about capacity, resources, better alignment of priorities and understanding of what considerations are taken into mind. But for some structural reform, if required at some point in future, may well require legislation, but no such legislation is proposed at the moment. But I'm sure Mr Buchanan would be first to identify the opportunity that would come from Scotland being an independent nation without all the reserved powers coming to this place in this Parliament. At least entertain my concept that with all those powers coming to this Parliament then we would have a further reinvigorated debate. So what would you pass to local authorities into other local partners? Of course we'd have that debate. Things wouldn't stay the same in terms of what this Parliament does and what local authorities and other public sector partners currently do. We would have a further opportunity to put that subsidiarity principle into practice. John Wilson, please. Maybe the minister could clarify what causal of commission because my understanding is the commission on strengthening local democracy while being chaired by the president of COSLA is not in fact a causal of commission. Maybe the minister could clarify that when he answers my follow-up question. The follow-up question is ministered of the commission on strengthening local democracy is the issue about the centralisation claims that have been made by not only commission members but also other witnesses this committee has heard. What would be your reaction to that accusation that there has been a centralisation agenda in place by the Scottish Government? Minister. I think Mr Wilson wants me to clarify the position of the commission on strengthening local democracy chaired by the COSLA president. I will leave it to you and determine who you think leaves it. I think it has got pretty healthy membership and it is not for me to comment on. I have given evidence at it as well. The commission has enjoyed my presentation as well as this committee in terms of the Government's point of view. We look forward to the commission's findings and proposals around the next stages of course we do. I think they will be complementary to this work. On the wider charge of a centralisation sometimes this argument comes down to one issue. The council tax freeze is a thoroughly depressing subject. If you think about the opportunity in the constitutional moment we have the power of empowerment for our communities and when it comes down to that one issue you would expect me to say that the council tax freeze is fully funded and provided for local authorities can turn it down if they choose but there is no legislative requirement to make them deliver it. All of that said the power on the council tax freeze still rests with the local authority because we have compensated them to deliver it I believe that it is a robust policy. Here is the issue. If this Parliament elects a Government as they have done with a manifesto then this Government has a right to deliver that manifesto and sometimes it will be national commitments such as a council tax freeze on a range of other policies. So we have got this democratic mandate to deliver national policies just as local authorities have their democratic mandate to deliver those local policies as well and sometimes between COSLA and Government will be a matter of negotiation but the proof of the pudins in the eating in the financial freedom that local authorities have ring ffencing is down massively I think from memory £2.7 billion down to about £200 million let's freed up a whole host of resources from something like a quarter of a local authority's budget to much greater autonomy financially now. Added to that the other powers around power of wellbeing and flexibility to deliver I refute and reject a centralisation child because we have a mandate to do certain things and we've done it and I think that's democratically approved and provided for and the flexibility that local authorities have given them the room to deliver their priorities as well. Now there is of course is not a dichotomy and a paradox around what some describe as a postcode lottery where people in different parts of the country want the same standard of service they want the same as the person in the next council area or the next street so there is an issue about provision of national services and national standards and national requirement that can be delivered whilst also understanding the flexibility of local authorities and the government's tried to support that provision of national standards and national commitments whilst empowering local authorities to get on with it but when we come back to this centralisation charge of the argument and invariably returns to council tax freeze and I hope I've given you the reason why I don't think that that's a valid criticism of the government. Thank you, convener. Taking aside the council tax freeze it seems to be the bane of some local authorities in terms of that allegation that's made about the centralisation because of the council tax freeze while of course annually welcomed by many local authorities Minister outline what additional powers in terms of revenue raising he could foresee in a future Scotland that local authorities may have to deliver services within their own communities. Minister. I'm sure Mr Wilson was giving me the opportunity to do so, doesn't expect me to propose any further thinking on what we may do in that situation but the opportunity is this Parliament right now of course has powers over a degree of the income tax is constrained as it is, non-domestic rates working partnership with local authorities and also council tax. Local authorities of course can range a whole host of charges that they may choose to deploy and many of them do charges for services and so on but if the Parliament and the government therefore had more levers of power right across the board as we would have with independence then again there's a further opportunity to look at well what further financial powers could local authorities have in that scenario because we'd be fully responsible and accountable for the resources we raise and spend in Scotland and that empowerment agenda could work for local authorities as well so I won't have a list of what we would do for local government in terms of that scenario but that debate would be quite an empowering and an exciting one as I've described a further transfer of powers from London to Edinburgh, what could go from Edinburgh to local councils of that said we may still have a proposition around unitary setting of business rates and so on you may not choose to make everything local but some elements national but the economic levers that local authorities could have I think the aspects of them being enhanced are far better with independence than with the status quo or even the limited transfer of powers that I've seen proposed to date Thank you Alex Rowley please Still morning You mentioned islands when we talk about electoral turnout and Professor James Mitchell when he gave evidence to this committee he said it was notable that the island councils have consistently had turnouts that are among the highest and it's also notable I think that the island councils you will find less political party organisation in the island councils compared to the mainland councils certainly that's the case I know in Shetland which is one I know best but is it not just that when we look at party politics that the general public are sick to the teeth politicians and party politicians and party political in and they actually end up at the end of the day thinking you know this lot are the same and we never actually get any place with them see even like a bit like the pot calling the kettle black that we're sitting here looking at local government and how they can increase their voter turnout because Professor Mitchell also pointed out that across the UK there's been a steady line in elections for all levels of government so you know is there something there about party politics more and I know you've got a debate on this this afternoon Minister I think Mr Rowley raises a very helpful reflection upon is all and yes there is a wider debate to be had about connecting and reconnecting with our electorate but of course the phenomenon of decreasing turnout is Europe wide and the last European elections showed a bit of a anti-establishment point of view coming across in a European context. The reference it's made to the island areas of course is an interesting one. I don't think it necessarily flaws at the best way to increase turnout in local authority elections is to scrap party politics, remove our parties that would be very radical for Mr Rowley to suggest in the Labour Party never mind more widely in Parliament but there is something about the politics on the islands about how people engage with their local authorities and turnout and the nature of their candidates and I think maybe in that sense that the party politicising their approach has helped them reach a essential position to then negotiate with Government what further powers could be propositing. That said of course Westernau is different from Orkney and Shetland and it does have party politics in the council authority area as well and whilst independence may stand on in other parts of Scotland it doesn't necessarily affect turnout. Looking at the turnout of just local authority elections of course there was a downward trajectory until it was combined with the Scottish Parliament elections where it went from the last so local authority election pre-Scots Parliament election combined was 44.9% and then up to 58% for the first Scottish Parliament elections and then of course in 2012 when the council elections were against and alone it was down to 39.7% incidentally slightly higher than what some people estimated so that's not as healthy as we'd want it to be I think we'll have more time to debate this in the afternoon and I have proposed and will work on a cross-party and quite consensual basis to take forward ideas for democratic participation in turnout so some of that's about how we vote should we consider telephone voting, electronic voting, online voting and a reference to debate in the House of Commons mobile phone voting as well so as technology moves on I think we have to think about new ways of voting whilst absolutely reconnecting with our electorate and understanding the reasons for lower turnout as well so I think it's a very complex area but we'll certainly learn from best practice where we find it whilst recognising this is a phenomenon in developed countries and particularly in Europe as well interestingly in Europe the turnout tends to be higher particularly in local elections even though it's been coming down but generally authorities, local authorities in Scotland are raising around 10%, just over 10% of the revenue in Europe that figure is averaging out about just over 40% of the revenue and is there a correlation there therefore between people actually voting for a level of government where they actually do have powers to raise income and are much more democratically accountable for that income I mean just briefly I thought your answer on centralisation was spot on and it's an honest answer and it's the difficulty between different levels of government and each having a mandate once we get past the referendum regardless of the result and it's certainly the view I would argue with the committee is that we have to look at how local government is financed and do that across cross-party because just now it becomes a party polluting the issue and probably turns the people off even more than before so are you in favour of looking cross-party at actually how local government is financed and do you think there's a role for this committee post referendum in the spirit that Mr Rowley's made the suggestion I think there's absolutely something in that on-going discussion about the powers and the financial freedoms of local authorities going forward and that's why I think I try to outline six principles we've used in engaging with the island areas we've used the same principles to discuss it with cities or any other grouping of local authorities that might want to discuss the empowerment agenda and post referendum because this place will be different then there is space to have that discussion about well what does that mean for local government financial powers and if we conduct it on the basis that Mr Rowley would like us to on a consensual cross-party basis on what actually works then I think that would be a very strong footing in which we could have that discussion thank you Mr Rowley Mark McDonald please thank you very much convener I've spoken a little bit about turnout and participation and one of the concerns that's been raised with the committee during the process is that often when local authorities consult or governments consult they tend to go to a very restricted group of individuals who tend to be the ones who are most involved in some of the consultation some of the discussions that take place and there are a large number of people out there who feel disenfranchised what steps can the Scottish Government take and maybe local authorities take to reach out more to those people who are not actively engaged to try and encourage them to be more engaged in what goes on at a local level I think that's a great question and there's a lot in that but with government we have to be very careful that we don't instruct some sort of new commandment and this is how you must engage this is how you must deliver participation but I hope that the community empowerment bill helps deliver that culture of expectation around how we engage with our communities not by saying just how to do it better because there are national standards but actually empowering communities to let them have the say at the point they want to be involved not as Mr McDonnell quite rightly identifies at the end of a process and a predetermined outcome with a tick box mentality but genuinely empowering them and having their say by matter more so so new rights in terms of that just by way of good practice and best practice we're going to embark on commissioning work with What Works Scotland around community plan partnerships and have an evidence based approach around them to see what's making the biggest difference and community led projects are critical within that and engagement and involvement with communities but some good practice would involve going beyond if you'll forgive me for describing them as such as those people who always attend the committee meetings and the same organisations as brilliant as their work is sometimes we have to go further than that to get wider opinion so for example a community plan partnership I knew well when I chaired it in Renfrewshire we went into children's homes to ask them what they thought about provisioning services and so on as well as the usual panels and meetings and thematic groups so thinking about new ways of working new ways of engagement is really good practice when we want to encourage that but not a top down approach creating conditions in which people become involved is certainly a a direction that we would encourage I mean one of the things we heard during our trip to Sweden from Malmo was around the sort of citizens jury or citizens panel that they have set up where people are invited on to that say randomly but there is a process to select people but at the same time it circumvents some of the groups as you say who are the ones who are most likely to be at the front of the queue to offer their opinions is that something the Scottish Government is keen to see happening yes we'd encourage such good practice again some authorities already do that so it's to be encouraged and replicated the country over because you can do it of course randomly through the electoral register or whatever other address list you choose to pick but you could select taxpayers, residents, voters young people, whatever and engage in different ways so that customer panel idea has happened in a different way in Scotland but absolutely the question is would we encourage it yes we would it's been deployed very effectively because it does exactly as Mr McDonald suggests it brings different people into the fold it's actually a two way process not only does the public services learn from them sometimes the members of the public citizens who might not have known of public services or what's going on or indeed what the challenges are that's shared as well and as they engage with each other you get the intergenerational benefit of young people finding out about what older people's issues are and vice versa so that's very healthy and to be encouraged one of the other issues that has come up is around size and the issue around remoteness of some communities from what they perceive to be the decision making that takes place I mean we took from the western house perspective for example where it was mentioned that for people in Barra, Stornoway is as remote to them as Edinburgh is as a centre of decision making if you look at Highland for example or Aberdeenshire would people in Lawrence Kirk for example feel that they had a commonality with people in Fraserborough yet they are served by the same authority and one of the things that we saw when we went to these countries in Europe was that the size of municipalities it varies and obviously in some places there's a difference allowed for for example city authorities but the unit size tends to be much smaller in terms of the municipality or the authority because the Scottish Government taken a view as to looking in the future at how local government is operating in Scotland in terms of the size and number of authorities that we currently have I know at the moment is that there's no change for scene but is that something that could be looked at as part of a transfer of powers agenda in the future? I think that's a good question and all of the locations identified I'm sure they'd agree that any location in Scotland feels closer than London in terms of transfer of powers and where decisions are made but the principle of subsidiarity is to try and take decision making as close to the people as possible whilst addressing that issue of national delivery that I referenced earlier on a specific point around number of councils, structure of councils and boundaries of councils our position has not changed and I'll say why in just a moment and bring in another argument along those lines there is European evidence that I have seen that suggests more local authority elected members as the norm in Europe and may well be of assistance I just don't detect, I don't think that's what the Scottish public are right now that more local authority councils will deliver greater participation or improve services or anything else so the instruction, the ministerial direction given the boundary commission is at this point there's no requirement for more councillors in Scotland to work within the parameters at the moment and they can of course explain the work they're undertaking at the moment in terms of what that means for different numbers across Scotland so same number of councillors or fewer as they propose at the moment marginally but the reason we don't support a change to local authority boundaries, not just because it was the agreement in the Concordat in 2007 is because we think that that structural change would be a misuse of energy at this time because of the work that would involve of course boundary changes may well end up in court as the final resort where there's not agreement on boundaries and therefore at this stage we continue to hold to the structures we've got and the challenge we've given to local authorities in community plan partnerships is to integrate, to work together to work across boundaries organisational institutionally and geographically as well to focus on outcomes and that is still the government's chosen approach at this time to work across those boundaries and for that reason maintain the number of councillors and the structures or the boundaries as they stand and I hope that that answers the question Stuart McMillan, please Thank you, convener following on from Mark McDonald's question just regarding the number and the size of authorities have you are you aware of any particular either positive or negative evidence where there has been a co-terminosity of boundaries between local government and the likes of health boards and any other bodies in terms of the service provision I'm thinking in terms of the Fife and the Western Isles I've got the similar boundaries particular for the health service and local authorities I think Mr McMillan quite rightly almost answers his own question there to say yes Fife is a good example the island authorities are all good examples there are others where co-terminosity it does help when aligning resources and having a partnership approach because a chief executive from one organisation talked to the chief executive of another organisation or the same goes for chair and leader so co-terminosity helps but that said it wouldn't be universally beneficial because if you then transplanted that to every part of Scotland you wouldn't just have a health board for Clackmann and Schersey because we know that the boundaries we have with inherited and local authority structures from previous conservative governments it's not how you would design local authorities if you were to start from a blank page but we are where we are and I've explained why structural change and boundary change wouldn't be helpful certainly at this time so co-terminosity helps but even where we don't have co-terminosity the structures work where you've got the right partnership approach and people engage so in other parts of the country where there's not co-terminosity but there's good engagement good partnership working and then we've been able to make progress now I'll give you one example I suppose yesterday the national community planning group Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board in Glasgow city council on the approach that's been taken in community planning and it's increasingly reassuring so there's an example where you have six local authorities in a health board area a large health board making partnerships work across the different organisations but don't have absolute co-terminosity so yes is the answer to the question where we've got it, it helps but you wouldn't make the structures fit just for the purpose or the objective of co-terminosity thank you for that certainly earlier on in your comments you mentioned the word differential devolution which I certainly thought was an interesting concept certainly put forward and it struck me that simply with that particular with those comments and also what you've provided to the committee in the letter day to the 28th of March on page 2 when you suggested in terms of the service delivery and the paradox of local democracy and how it can actually be met it just struck me that in terms of the local authorities I heard evidence on this from Argyll and Butte council in particular just in terms of how they actually can deliver services at local level particularly with some authorities that are so widespread and so disparate and it just struck me that going forward irrespective of what happens with the referendum but going forward how can you try to square that circle in terms of ensuring that service delivery at local level is the best at possible it could be but at the same time ensuring that there is a tremendous amount of local decision making actually taking place well I was hoping the committee was going to give me the answer to all that frankly and you're the committee but I think this work will be informed by the commission clearly looking at this paradox with their own point of view but with a range of experts and any evidence the committee will look into it and the government of course we're very mindful of it some of it may well remain as a constant conflict so you can accept that there are national rights and service standards that we want to deliver and deploy but they might be applied differently locally because just as each authority will differ so will communities within that authority as Mr McMillans explained in Ergyll and Bute context so I think there'll be that on-going debate and sometimes it will be for political parties and their manifestos to produce the policy commitments they want to achieve sometimes it will be national and sometimes it will be left to local but the charge of postcode lottery sometimes unfair so in some respects you can't generalise about the public but there'll have to be an acceptance do you want some things to be delivered nationally or do you want absolute local freedom and if you want absolute local freedom that will mean that something's different in a different area and will the public accept that in some areas but not in everything and that dialogue that debate we can have about what those issues, what those policies and what those financial levers maybe is certainly to come but the government's very open minded to the debate but we I think what I'm trying to indicate is some would make it as simple as localism and local is always best always but that's not the case if you want national standards on some areas now that might be waiting times for a you know a medical treatment and so on just as an example or or certain rights around carers for example people may want national rights and therefore some issues will be national for national determination how they're applied locally there can be flexibility around that so it's a fair and honest debate to be had and we'll certainly engage in it but we don't have the overall answer because of all the international comparisons you've looked at as well I don't think it's fair to say that there is one structure one system that's absolutely right for Scotland that we're not delivering there's a range of options there's a range of evidence and comparators but it's certainly about trying to make it as local as we can whilst ensuring there's national delivery so hopefully that answers in part the question that's been posed but I think it's an ongoing debate that follows on from that certainly throughout this particular enquiry and also this morning we've heard the issue of focus upon cities and also upon rural communities but there's also another part of Scotland that's not really discussed a tremendous amount and that's the urban areas that they're either in between cities or basically wherever they are and for me I think that's very much an important part of Scotland that certainly needs to be pursued and I certainly did raise this with Deputy First Minister and a previous committee looking at the city strategy and so in terms of the work that you're undertaking minister how do you see the issue of the non-city urban areas actually having powers and actually having the ability to fully develop their areas as compared to as compared to trying to be compared to other parts of Scotland such as the cities and rural areas? I think that's right in the sense that towns must not be forgotten in the whole debate and the whole mix about the evolution, empowerment and subsidiarity but more reassuringly towns are very much at the form of central to our thinking because the islands areas almost a year ago launched their campaign and over that period we've been engaging with them. The cities alliance I think is working well pulling Scotland cities together to collaborate where they have strength but so too are the towns but you don't hear about it. The towns have particularly around the town centres issue been organising themselves through a range of fora to take forward their agenda but I suppose this is a reflection on local authorities themselves. Most local authorities are a mixture of cities towns and rural areas or islands in a way that's appropriate so where authorities want to approaches on that collaborative basis then we'll certainly engage with them but the policy environment we've created and the resource environment that I think we've created is just as supportive of towns now in the community empowerment that I've spoken about quite a lot this morning I've covered different elements one of the key elements will be extending the community right to buy from rural areas to urban areas for the first time so there is great work going on in relation to our towns but it sometimes doesn't get the focus it maybe deserves and I administer with lead responsibility for delivering the government's town centre action plan I do what I can to promote that work you know we need to raise the profile of this agenda as well but to say more crucially it is a reflection of the fact that local authorities the way they're made up may represent cities, towns and in rural areas but I can assure you the government's on top of all of these agendas to ensure that no part of Scotland is left out in our actions and our considerations as this constitutional journey very exciting constitutional journey goes forward can you raise that a bit from Alex Rowley please just on that point you mentioned the cities but the city regions are absolutely crucial to suggest and do you agree with that in the role we obviously economic development and local government is crucial for regenerating Scotland and that needs to be done on a city region basis as well as a smaller basis can I thank Mr Rowley for answering the question even better than I did to Mr McMillan I think that's right because the city region may be based around the city but it's the towns and other communities that make up that district or that conurbation that is the city region yes I do agree that those alliances are making a difference and have great power to be the dynamos of economic growth absolutely and we should continue to innovate with them on what measures can further enhance the prospects in those areas not just to deliver economic growth but to tackle inequality in those areas as well geographic and individual thank you and Mick Taggart please thanks convener the committee we did hear from local government minority leaders on the types of financial autonomy that they would like to see and Edinburgh in particular had mentioned about hotel bed tax can I ask firstly his view on that this is a matter that I think has come before come to the tourism minister Fergus Ewing's attention the Scottish Government is not particularly supportive of that new tax we don't see what value it adds to tourism we think it might be counterproductive my last recollection of this issue was the council discussed it in 2012 and they themselves opted not to progress not to be confused with the bedroom tax but kind of hotel bed or the hotel room tax whatever it was proposed at the time so even they determined not to not to proceed with it I think in 2012 fairly fairly recently and look at other options and that includes engaging with the Government we're happy to continue to engage with them I think it's just an example if I went back to the principles one of which can command or show public support I'm not entirely sure that the city of Edinburgh could evidence great support for this hotel bed tax but as I say the council opted not to progress it themselves and I don't think Fergus Ewing as appropriate minister was particularly keen either that said local authorities have a range of powers and financial mechanisms to deploy to continue to raise income another funding question minister how will the current distribution formula operates and his view and your view on the current difficulties and issues with the formula I have the privilege position of when I was in COSLA as a group leader and a council leader I was part of the last very intense distribution formula task force and the prospect of getting 32 out of 32 council leaders to agree the formula that pleases them all is zero so we have to arrive at the best formula we can essentially we have inherited a formula try to augment it and improve it in partnership with local authorities through COSLA that's what we elected to do that's what we have done we listened to COSLA's view recently on some of the issues around whether to follow the needs based approach or not but local government decisions Scottish Government accepts, understands is delivering that decision so we have tried to work in partnership throughout but local government finances is a tough issue in that each local authority will always argue for the best to deal they can possibly get in a formula that suits their needs and therefore it remains a partnership approach that we will take but we think the formula does recognise need and therefore I do believe it's fit for purpose although if there's any suggestions for improvement then we'll happily look at them the final point I want to make around local government finance is that how you share the cake is one issue but it's very important to remember that the government has protected local government budgets as best we can not every local authority leader might think that but the comparisons with our counterparts show that we have protected local authorities we protected health first and foremost and we have then tried to protect local authorities as the overall reduction to Scottish Government's budget took place then we have protected local authorities now I wouldn't don't just take my word for it I would reference Sir Merrick Cochula, Conservative councillor the chairman of the LGA in England who said this year I meet my opposite numbers in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland and they listened to us and why did I disbelief at the budget cuts we are enduring and they are not so I would refer to councillor Sir Merrick Cochula, chairman of the LGA who just shows that we've done our best to protect Scottish local authority budgets in very difficult circumstances briefly please Anne just a final point just to ask when the community impairment bill will be laid in the Parliament the I think I'll have civil servants can I kick me underneath the table to say I'm not sure if you can say of course I can share anything with committee of Parliament the bill will be launched eminently a broad and particularly in Sweden in Paris they don't have a bed tax they have what's called a city tax just for the cities which sort of work quite well I just wonder what your opinion was on that most of the cities have it in rural areas and not places that have been deprived and rather than calling it a bed tax could it be a city tax? Edinburgh could probably supported so could probably Glasgow but I don't know about the rest what would be your opinion on that? I'm sure if Mr Buchanan will forgive me if I go back to the ministerial tower and tell Mr Swinney I've just committed to a city tax I may not be lasting much longer on the ministerial tower so I'm more than happy to receive correspondence and ensure that the government gives it full consideration John Valsam please Thank you convener just for one final question Minister the issue of COSLA negotiations in terms of budgets given the discussions that are currently taking place in COSLA and the proposed split from COSLA by a number of authorities how will that impact on future negotiations in terms of budget settlements? Minister Of course it's entirely a matter for COSLA how they conduct their business and how members choose to participate and I'm aware of the issues that got COSLA to this position one of them is distribution and they've now determined and concluded their position and that's helpful in that respect in terms of a hypothetical of other local authorities departing from COSLA the position of the government is as I outlined it at the COSLA conference this year which is that for major financial or policy matters you would expect that we engage with COSLA first and foremost but of course we would have dialogue with other local authorities but as the collective body the umbrella group for Scotland's local authorities we would engage first and foremost with COSLA but we wouldn't block out any other local authority but substantive discussions it would be best to have with that umbrella organisation particularly other than those national significant policy and financial matters final question minister and you'll be pleased to hear it's not about the distribution formula because you and I have had our debates about that previously in different lives the only part of local government that hasn't changed since 1974 is community councils does the government have any thinking on the future of community councils and do you think that community councils get the respect that they should from local authorities themselves? Well convener I started out as a community council at 18 years old I suspect I'm the exception not the norm in community council membership so the government does support community councils we have undertaken the short life working group and a range of actions to support them including some recent pilot work and work with the improvement service so as I said fairly I don't propose a whole sale review of their functions because I think that gets us back to structural debate issues when community councils like a range of other community anchor organisations can deliver projects, can take advantage of the community empowerment bill and other government funding streams as well to make things happen locally but I think they should get more respect I think they should have more engagement from some to ensure that their statutory places can actually recognise because they do have a role for example in the planning process and that should be remembered and recognised but I do want to send out a message to all Scotland's community anchor organisations that they'll all have a really significant role to play going forward in the delivery of the empowerment agenda because just as we want to empower our nation with independence we want to empower our communities as well. Thank you very much minister a few minutes for a change of witnesses thank you very much. Our next item of business is to undertake stage 2 consideration of the disabled persons parking badges Scotland bill I'd like to welcome Dennis Robertson the member in charge of the bill, Stuart Stevenson who has been designated as a member in charge of the bill for the purposes of stage 2 and Keith Brown minister for transport and veterans who has portfolio responsibility for the subject matter of the bill everyone should have with them a copy of the bill is introduced the marshaled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments I would remind members of our stage 1 report on the bill in relation to the subject matter of the amendments before us today there will be one debate on each group of amendments I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to move their amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in that group Members who have not lodged amendments in the group who wish to speak should indicate to me if they wish to speak if Mr Robertson wishes to contribute to the general debate in a group of amendments he should also indicate this to me if they have not already spoken in the group I will invite the minister and then Mr Stevenson is a designated member in charge to contribute to the debate the debate in each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up I will then ask whether the member who moved the first amendment wishes to press the amendment to a vote or to withdraw it if they wish to press ahead I will put the question on the amendment if a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved they must seek the committee's agreement to do so if any committee member objects the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment if any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it they should say not moved please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment if no one moves the amendment I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list only MSPs are allowed to participate in the debates on amendments and committee members are allowed to vote at stage 2 voting is by a show of hands it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote on each section at the appropriate point before I move on to the amendments do any of the panel have any general remarks they would like to make Mr Robertson thank you convener can I begin by thanking the committee for their consideration at stage 1 and obviously for the members who took part in the stage 1 debate and for agreeing the general principles of the disabled persons parking Bill Scotland it is also an opportunity to thank the minister for supporting this bill and for also answering many of the questions that were asked during the debate on the 20th of May convener this is a small bill but I think the bill in itself is looking at the enforcement aspects of the blue badge in terms of misuse I think the bill is proportionate and appropriate as it stands and therefore I'd be hoping that members would accept the bill as is thank you convener Mr Robertson I will move on and the first item that we have to deal with are sections 1 and 2 the question is that sections 1 and 2 be agreed to are we all agreed thank you section 3 is limitation on power to confiscate badge can I call amendment 1 in the name of John Wilson and a group on its own Mr Wilson would you like to move and speak to your amendment thank you convener just to make clear to the committee these amendments have been suggested by Inclusion Scotland I know the committee took evidence from Inclusion Scotland during the passage of the stage 1 of the bill however they feel necessary to raise these amendments just to highlight some of the issues of concern amendment 1 has been quite clear there is no issue or objection to the confiscation of blue badges that have been cancelled or otherwise been made invalid however there's concerns that confiscation of valid badges may have serious consequences for a disabled person impacting on their right to independent living I'd like to see the section amended to restrict the power to confiscate badges or to cancel invalid or fraudulent badges confiscation of a valid badge effectively imposes a penalty without the right of appeal the appropriate penalty is a fixed penalty notice for the parking offence which can be appealed or in the case of systematic or repeated abuse prosecution through the courts amendment 1 is to limit the powers of confiscation to blue badges that are not valid e.g. because they have been cancelled because they should not have been returned to the should have been returned to the issuing authority because they have been tampered with or because they are fake forced it should be possible for enforcement officers to quickly establish if a badge is invalid by checking the serial number against the national database where a valid badge has allegedly been misused it should not be assumed that this misuse will continue or that the badge will not be returned to the badge holder by the person who allegedly misused it guidance can be established in a process for informing the badge holder of the alleged misuse requiring the badge holder to confirm that the badge has been returned to them and warning that the future misuse may lead to the badge being withdrawn Thank you, does any member wish to contribute to the debate in which case please Thank you, convener. I would just say that third party misuse of blue badges is certainly a problem I've had correspondence on it from constituents and also from the wider public during the course of this bill. The provisions in the bill as currently constituted would allow confiscation of a badge from third parties who have no entitlement to use that badge and that's very important because it sends out the message that blue badge misuse is socially unacceptable. The provision to confiscate badges misuse is intended to discourage and prevent abuse of the system and removing this provision in my view would weaken enforcement of the blue badge scheme. And just to be clear the end result of confiscating badges from third parties is that valuable parking spaces will be freed up for use by blue badge holders who need these spaces the most. So for those reasons convener, I support the provision in Dennis Robertson's bill. Thank you minister. I'm going to take Mr Stevenson as the designated member in charge to undertake Mr Robertson after that. Mr Stevenson, please. Thank you very much indeed convener. Amendment 1 seeks to remove the power of a constable or enforcement officer in Scotland to confiscate a badge which has been issued under section 21 of the Chronically Second Disabled Person Scumpton Act 1970 but is not being displayed on the vehicle as prescribed by the regulations of the scheme. I'm concerned that the amendment would weaken the powers of local authorities to confiscate badges. It would mean that confiscation would be limited to badges which have been cancelled for example because they've been reported lost or stolen or should have been returned to the local authority under the requirements of the regulation for example if the badge holder was deceased. Significantly amendment 1 would remove the power for constables or local authorities to confiscate a valid badge from a third party who has no right to use that badge. The third party might be a friend or relative of a badge holder who is using the badge for their own benefit to gain free parking. It might also be an individual who has stolen the blue badge. To remove the power to confiscate in these circumstances would mean that that abuse by the third party could continue unhindered. This not only disadvantages the person to whom the badge was issued but the many other disabled people and there are 263 145 blue badge holders as of the 31 March 2012 who would be deprived of parking in disabled bays and of the independence that this provides. Concerns have been raised during the passage of the bill that confiscation would deprive badge holders of their freedom. I want to reassure members that blue badges will only be confiscated when there is a justification to do so. It's been made clear that when a valid badge is confiscated from a third party it will be returned to the badge holder. This will be accompanied by a letter reminding them of their rights and responsibilities under the blue badge scheme. This protects badge holders whether it is from inadvertent or unscrupulous misuse. Regulations will require local authorities to return the badge as soon as practical and in any event no later than 14 days after confiscation. Local authorities have told us that they have no reason to hold onto badges and as happens currently every effort will be made to return the badge to the holder quickly. The power to confiscate is intended to protect badge holders, raise awareness of the value of the blue badge and reduce the propensity for future misuse. We need to get to the stage where blue badge misuse is seen by all as socially unacceptable. I therefore invite John Wilson to seek the committee's agreement to withdraw amendment 1. Thank you Mr Stevenson. Mr Robertson please. Very briefly convener, I think the point has been well verbalised by Stuart Stevenson here and that we are trying to get the badges that are being misused off the streets because it does disadvantage people with who are blue badge holders themselves. If someone is acting, has a badge and they are third party misuse they are denying someone else a parking space. And to say that the consequences for the disabled person is I think with reference to the amendment, there are serious consequences as well. The serious consequences is actually the misuse of others. It's not the confiscation will be done only when there is justifiable reasons for actually removing the badge. And I think it's actually the justifiable reasons that we need to actually focus on convener. Badges will not be removed if it's felt there are some degree of ambiguity but it will be removed and confiscated if it is absolutely certain by the officer removing the badge that it is being misused. And returned to the badge holder with an explanatory letter. Thank you convener. Thank you Mr Robertson. Can I ask John Mawson to wind up and press her with draw please. Convener, just in responding to the comments, I welcome the statement by Mr Stevenson in relation to the blue badge being returned to the rightful owner if it is a legitimate blue badge and based on those assurances I will not proceed with moving this amendment. It's withdrawn. Are the committee happy that that's withdrawn? Thank you. In which case we move on to section 3. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I now move on to amendment 2. Can I call that amendment in the name of John Wawson grouped with amendments 3 and 4. Mr Wawson to move amendment 2 to all amendments in the group please. Thank you very much convener. Inclusion Scotland and other organisations representing disabled people have expressed concerns that a disabled person or a carer may be criminalised where they have inadvertently used a blue badge that has been cancelled. For example if it had been reported lost but subsequently been found before the replacement had been received. It is appreciated that section 4 amends UK legislation to bring Scotland into line with amendments made in England and Wales in 2013 but we would like to see the bill amended to delete this section as the law society has indicated that it is not necessary. If the committee is not minded to delete the entire section we would like to see section 4 amended to prevent people being criminalised for inadvertently using a badge that is not valid. For example a carer who did not know the badge had been reported lost or stolen or a badge that had been reported lost but was then found. Amendment 3 deletes subsection 2 which amends section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as a 1984 act already refers to section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 subsection 2 appears to add an unnecessary additional reference. Thank you. Anyone else wish to enter the debate? Maybe when you are summing up Mr Wilson you could tell us what other organisations have backed Inclusion Scotland because you said Inclusion Scotland and other organisations. Minister. I don't support these amendments in my view there has to be adequate redress for those who use cancelled badges or use badges which should have been returned under the regulations this is part if you like the teeth of the bill. That doesn't mean to say of course that each case will not be considered closely and Dennis Robertson has taken steps to ensure that the guidance highlights that care needs to be taken by enforcement officers in identifying the circumstances under which badges are used and that includes the use of cancelled badges or those which should have been returned but as with the previous amendment removing powers to take action against those who deliberately misuse the badge will not in my view reduce or encourage the reduction of deliberate misuse. Thank you. Thank you. Amendment 2 provides that a person would only be guilty of an offence under section 21 for BZA of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970 if that person had caused to know that they were using a cancelled badge or a badge which should have been returned to the issuing authority under the regulations. This would mean that an element of knowledge would need to be proved by the prosecutor. I oppose the amendment as it introduces an unnecessary complication and would make it very difficult to obtain convictions against those abusing the scheme. This is an area where it would be exceedingly difficult to frame an offence so as to leave reasonable prospect to convicting those who should be convicted while ruling out completely the possibility of action against an innocent party who uses a cancelled badge through inadvertence. As the law stands at present each case has to be treated on its own merits. Not all cases will be considered appropriate for report to the Procurator Fiscal. In cases where cases are reported by the police or local authority the Procurator Fiscal will decide what action to take including whether it is in the public interest to prosecute someone. I want to put on the record that we would not expect action to be taken if a person has previously reported the badge lost, finds it and inadvertently uses it again instead of the replacement badge. The same situation would apply to a carer who transports a badge holder and is unlikely to be aware that the badge holder is using a cancelled badge. These examples are specifically identified in the guidance being developed by the multi-agency working group which I understand includes Inclusion Scotland to support the bill which also highlights the need for a pragmatic approach. Turning to amendment 3 this seeks to remove from the bill subsection 2 of section 4 which amends section 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 so as to make it an offence to display on a parked vehicle a badge which has been cancelled or should have been returned to the issuing authority under the regulations. I oppose this amendment for exactly the same reasons as I opposed amendment 2. Turning to amendment 4 this would remove section 4 of the bill entirely meaning that neither section 21 of the 1970 Act nor section 117 of the 1984 Act would provide for the use of a cancelled badge or badge which should have returned under the regulations to be an offence. Section 2 of the bill gives local authorities the statutory power to cancel badges which are reported as lost or stolen or should have been returned under the regulations. If these badges are subsequently found to be in use particularly by a person to whom the badge was not issued it would seem logical that that misuse should constitute an offence. I therefore ask the member to seek the committee's agreement to withdraw amendment 2 and ask that he not move amendments 3 and 4. Thank you Mr Robertson please. Very little to say convener in respect of this. I think it's for me if a badge has actually been for instance lost and is then found but another badge has been issued there could be a mix up to some extent and that will be taken into account. Everything is going to be proportionate convener and the guidance will be able to illustrate that I believe. What we need to do here is to try and be sure that any badge which has been reported lost doesn't find its way out into the wider general public for use and if that badge is then found by an officer to being used then it should be confiscated and the person prosecuted. Thank you very much Mr Robertson can I call John Walson to wind up an amendment 2 and press for withdrawal. Convener to respond to your initial question you will be aware Inclusion Scotland is a national network of disabled people's organisations and individual disabled people I don't have specific the individual organisations to hand I could actually name in relation to your question in relation to the responses received from the minister and Mr Stevenson in relation to the amendments can I say that I am minded to accept Mr Stevenson's comments regarding that not every case that would be identified would be subject to prosecution and that there would be discretion within the system to allow whether or not cases are reported to procreate a fiscal and that the public interest test is applied to ensure that we do not see unnecessary prosecution of individuals who inadvertently fall fill of the legislation without knowledge of doing so. So I withdraw. Are committee happy for that withdrawal? Thank you. If we can move on and I call amendment 3 in the name of John Wilson already debated with amendment 2 Mr Wilson to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. If I can move on because I see no objection there can I call amendment 4 in the name of John Wilson already debated with amendment 2 Mr Wilson to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. Fine, we can move on then. We now have to agree sorry I've lost it. Can I put the question on section 4 of the bill? Are we all agreed on section 4? Thank you. If I can now call amendment 5 in the name of John Wilson amendment 6 Can I ask Mr Wilson to move amendment 5 and speak to both amendments in the group please? Thank you, convener. Concern still remains about the use of non-uniformed enforcement officers for the inspection and confiscation of badges. There is no objection to non-uniformed officers undertaking civilians and for checking displayed badges on parked vehicles. But for the reasons outlined previously we believe that only uniformed officers should have the power to be produced or confiscated badges. The key in this is enforcement officers must be unambiguously identifiable to prevent fraud or abuse of vulnerable people. Amendment 6 removes the provision allowing the appointment of non-uniformed enforcement officers. It would not prevent local authorities from continuing to employ non-uniformed officers to carry out investigation activities such as surveillance and checking the validity of displayed badges against the national database. Amendment 5 is consequential. Thank you, Mr Buchanan, please. Thank you very much indeed. I think this should be is not right. I think if you have a non-uniformed officer it doesn't really matter as long as they've got the right ID and they can be seen it should be okay. I just think to waste police time on getting somebody a uniformed officer because a non-uniformed officer or a non-uniformed person has seen a badge they call for the police, it takes time to move it away. I do not see the problem particularly. I don't think it was mooted that people would be upset if particularly if they're disabled that somebody is not in uniform. Surely if they show a valid badge they would not be upset and therefore I think we should definitely allow non-uniformed officers to have the power to confiscate the badge. We've got to be seen I think as a criminal offence. Thank you. Any other members wish to enter the debate? Minister, please. Can I say again that I would agree with the points made by Mr Buchanan and the other point to make as well is that cases of suspected fraud or persistent misuse of a blue badge often would need longer term surveillance and investigation than is able to be carried out by a parking attendant in the course of their day-to-day duties. Authorities choosing to employ an authority will have the right to choose or otherwise to employ an enforcement officer who may or may not be in uniform will be able to take in our view a more proactive approach to tackle blue badge misuse through investigations and targeted surveillance which could result in the confiscation of the badge. And I think this is a pragmatic response to tackling blue badge misuse and blue badge holders. I think that was the intent behind Dennis Robertson including this but certainly where blue badge holders are using their badges in compliance with the scheme, they will have absolutely nothing to fear from this. And it would not be good use incidentally of local authorities scarce resources to use such officers to approach blue badge holders indiscriminately on the street as has been suggested. When carrying out their duties, the enforcement officers need not be in uniform but as suggested by Mr Buchanan they will be required to carry appropriate ID and authorization. So for those reasons I support the provision in Dennis Robertson's bill that local authorities should have the power to appoint non-uniform staff to investigate abuse of the blue badge scheme and to inspect and confiscate badges where that's appropriate. Mr Siemenson, please. Thank you, convener. Amendment 6 seeks to delete the provision of the bill which provides a power for local authorities to appoint a new class of officer to enforce the blue badge scheme and who may or may not operate in uniform. Amendment 5 is consequential to amendment 6 so if the new class of enforcement officer cannot be used by a local authority there is no need for the provision in section 5 brackets 3 of the bill which provides for it not to be an offence to refuse examination of a badge if the enforcement officer does not produce evidence of their authority. I oppose amendments 5 and 6 because they would restrict the powers of local authorities to take a proactive approach to blue badge misuse. Cases of systematic fraud or misuse cannot always be dealt with at the time by parking attendants who have wider duties to carry out. Such cases may need longer term surveillance and investigation. Additionally when the public report cases of suspected fraud or persistent misuse of a blue badge to their local authority they quite rightly expect that their concerns will be taken seriously and fully investigated. Local authorities choosing to employ an enforcement officer will be able to take a more proactive approach to tackle blue badge misuse. As the minister said parking attendants with wider responsibilities will not always be able to follow up such cases as longer term surveillance investigation may be required to establish a pattern of misuse over time and gather supporting evidence. Of course some areas of the country may not experience the same level of blue badge abuse particularly if parking is free. Remembering that misuse and more seriously abuse of blue badges can lead to the over quarter of a million with a genuine need being deprived of access to their parking places. It should be understood that gathering information and evidence is going to be a necessary part of tackling this issue. Having the option to deploy plain cloth staff to undertake enforcement duties is necessary as with plain cloth police to support surveillance activities and protect those staff in what may be challenging circumstances where local authorities in particular challenges this option can increase effectiveness and improve outcomes for badge holders. Like all enforcement staff those carrying out their duties in plain clothes have a requirement to carry appropriate identification and authorization in particular when they approach members of the public. In this respect they are like any other public official. There is no more potential for fraudulent vaccination of such staff than is the case for other authority holders. I therefore request John Wilson to seek the committee's approval to withdraw amendment 5 and ask him not to move amendment 6. Sir Robertson, please. Very briefly convener, can I just say that I concur with Camry Buchanan's statement and I think that a person who is a valage badge holder has nothing to fear at any time in producing that badge whether the official is in uniform or not. Thank you. Thank you Mr Robertson. Mr Wilson, to wind up and press her with straw, please. I welcome the assurances that have been received from the minister and Mr Stevenson in relation to, particularly in relation to the ID that will be issued to any officer appointed by the council to carry out enforcement on behalf of the council. While I do not intend to proceed with moving this motion, it would be interesting just for future discussion, future consideration that both the member in charge of the bill and the minister consider discussions with local authorities to ensure that we have a standardised ID card that is issued so that disabled blue badge holders who use different local authorities are assured that there will be a standardisation in terms of the style of the identification used, so there is no confusion about what is happening when to go travel from one local authority to another. So that is a withdrawal. Are the committee content with that withdrawal? Thank you. We now move on to amendment 6 and I call that amendment in the name of John Wilson, already debated with amendment 5. Mr Wilson, to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. In which case I now move on to amendment number 7 in the name of John Wilson. Sorry, I beg your pardon. The question is that section 5 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 6 be agreed to, are we all agreed? And now I move on to amendment 7 in the name of John Wilson, in a group on its own. Mr Wilson, to move and speak to the amendment please. Thank you, convener. As has already been stated by Mr Stevenson, Inclusion Scotland are members of the blue badge enforcement working group, and welcome the progress that the group is making on developing a code of practice guidance that takes account of many of the concerns that have been raised. The guidance will cover for example circumstances in which a badge can be confiscated, procedure for return of a confiscated badge and identification of enforcement officers who would be helpful if the bill was amended to give statutory backing to this guidance. Therefore amendment 7 seeks to give powers to the Scottish ministers to issue guidance and requires authorities to have regard to that guidance. I move. Okay. Do any members wish to enter the debate? No, Minister, please. Thank you, convener. Amendment 7 has referred, seeks to ensure that Scottish ministers may issue guidance on the implementation of the provisions in this bill, and that local authorities must have regard to that guidance. In other words, it seeks to provide statutory underpinning for any guidance which is issued. The committee though in previous discussions that two multi-agency working groups are developing good practice guidance on this bill, which will be issued in turn to local authorities and to the police. However, I don't think that statutory underpinning of the guidance is required, and I want to assure members that in the case of areas covered by the bill which will require specific detail provisions to be complied with, these will be set down in the regulations. For example, the timescales for return of valid badges to a badge holder will be contained in regulations, and there will be a requirement on an individual to specify the grounds for requesting a review of a local authority decision to refuse a badge. The policy memorandum and the delegative powers memorandum on the bill set out the basis on which certain matters were to be covered by the regulations, and the delegative powers committee has not raised any concerns about the general approach on delegative powers. Guidance is just that it should provide good practice advice on administering and enforcing the blue badge scheme to suit local circumstances. It has been and will continue to be practice for the Scottish Government to update the guidance on the operation of the scheme. Any significant changes are made through consultation with a working group, and it's important that the guidance can be used flexibly by local authorities in order to fit with local arrangements. For those reasons, I don't see the need to provide statutory underpinning for any guidance issued in relation to this bill, and I would ask John Wilson to withdraw Mr Stevenson, please. Amendment 7 seeks to provide statutory underpinning for any guidance issued in respect to the provisions of the bill. I entirely agree with the views of Keith Brown, Minister for Transport veterans on this issue. Guidance is under development, and the important thing is that the areas where there is a need to comply with specific regulations, these will be prescribed in the regulations which will support the bill. The amendment at subsection 2 states, local authorities must have regard to any guidance issued, and Mr Wilson hopefully in his remark said that it requires authorities, authorities require to have regard to any guidance. The phrasing used carries with it the danger of converting a power that any local authority may use into one that they must use. I therefore, for that reason, and all the other reasons expressed, would ask John Wilson to seek the committee's permission to withdraw his amendment. Thank you, Mr Robertson, please. Again, very briefly, convener. The minister made reference to the two multi-purpose working groups. I attend these groups, as does Inclusion Scotland. During our meetings we have worked very closely with Inclusion Scotland and other members, and Inclusion Scotland at these meetings have welcomed the tone of the guidance actually being developed at these meetings. I believe that the guidance in itself, and we took on the comments from stage one from this committee in terms of we will ensure that the guidance is appropriate, and we will ensure that the appropriate guidance has the top maybe 10 aspects for the blue badge holders at any given time. I think it was Mr Buchanan at stage one had made reference to the guidance that is issued in the leaflets, etc. convener being basically far too large and very complex in terms of how it was set out. So we are working very hard with the multi-purpose groups to ensure that the guidance will be in a format that is appropriate for the badge holder to understand, and again, as I say I believe that the guidance is being taken forward with the groups and that includes Inclusion Scotland. Thank you. Mr Wilson, to wind up and presser withdrawal please. Thank you convener winding up and taking cognisance of the comments made by the minister and Mr Stevenson including the member in charge of the bill Mr Robertson in relation to the issue in terms of the ongoing work being carried out by the blue badges enforcement working group and the other working group to ensure that guidance can be developed that basically is workable and with the consent of the organizations who rely on the blue badge scheme for their members and the individuals involved. Therefore I will not be moving my amendment. Thank you. Are you a committee content that that's withdrawn? Thank you. In that case we move on. The question is that section 7 and 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That concludes the stage 2 proceedings on this bill. The Parliament has not yet determined the date when stage 3 proceedings will take place but members can now lodge stage 3 amendments in time with the legislation team. I wish to thank Dennis Robertson, Stuart Stevenson and the Minister for Transport and Veterans Affairs for attending this morning and I thank members for their participation today. Can we agree to defer item 3 in our agenda until next week? Thank you very much. In which case I close the committee. Thank you.