Item 2 is stage 2 consideration of the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill. I will briefly explain the procedure that we will follow during today’s proceedings for anyone watching. Members should have with them a copy of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings. Those documents are available on the bill’s web page on the Scottish Parliament’s website for anyone observing.
I will call each amendment individually, in the order of the marshalled list. The member who lodged the amendment should either move it or say that he has not moved it when it is called. If the member who lodged the amendment does not move it, any other member present may do so.
The groupings set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. In each debate, I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to move and speak to that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. I will then call other members with amendments in the group to speak to, but not move, their amendments and to speak to other amendments in the group if they wish to do so.
At my discretion, I will call any other members who wish to speak in the debate. Members who wish to speak should indicate by catching either my or the clerk’s attention. I will then call the minister if he has not already spoken in the debate. Finally, I will call the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up and either press the amendment or seek to withdraw it.
10:15
If the amendment is pressed, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw an amendment after it has been moved and debated, I will ask whether any member present objects. If there is an objection, I will immediately put the question on the amendment. Later amendments to the group are not debated again when they are reached. If they are moved, I will put the question on them straight away.
If there is a division, only committee members are entitled to vote. Voting is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands raised clearly until the clerk has recorded their names. If there is a tie, I must exercise a casting vote.
The committee is also required to consider and decide on each section of the schedule to the bill and the long title. I will put the question on each of those provisions at the appropriate point.
Section 1—Community wealth building statement
Amendment 30, in the name of Lorna Slater, is grouped with amendments 70 to 73, 40, 21, 74, 32, 79 and 117. If amendment 70 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 71 and 72. Amendments 21 and 74 are direct alternatives—they can both be moved and decided on—and the text of whichever is the last agreed to is what will appear in the bill.
I ask Lorna Slater to move amendment 30 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.
My amendments in the group are intended to make the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill more robust and to ensure that it adheres coherently to the principles of community wealth building.
By structuring the statement’s objectives around the community wealth building pillars and connecting it to the national performance framework, amendments 30 and 32 intend that the bill will hardwire community wealth building into Scotland’s broader economic, social and environmental architecture.
I have a particular interest in amendment 70. A bill with a single purpose is much clearer and easier to implement than one with two possibly conflicting purposes. The goal of pursuing economic growth is to maximise gross domestic product, which is very much at odds with the goal of reducing inequality and supporting the little local guy against big corporations.
No witness at the Economy and Fair Work Committee identified economic growth as a useful metric for measuring community wealth building, so I argue that it has no place in the bill. We are trying to grow something entirely different here—resilience and local wealth. We are not just trying to maximise GDP, so why reference something that can be measured only in GDP? We know that GDP is not an effective measure of community wealth building. If we measure the wrong thing, we get the wrong outcomes, so why not remove it from the bill altogether and remove the confusion?
In amendment 40, I am explicitly picking out the development of community-owned renewable energy, given the size and importance of that sector to communities across Scotland, not to mention the opportunities that it offers.
Amendment 21 would change “may” to “must” to ensure consistency and impact across Scotland.
On amendment 79, not all local authorities currently even comply with their statutory duty on common good land and assets registers. Without a deadline for that compliance, they have just failed utterly. They have had 10 years to do this, and it is time to press them on it.
On Sarah Boyack’s amendment 73, individuals also need to build wealth, not just businesses and organisations. When individuals own shares in a local enterprise or take dividends from a community energy project, they are sharing in the wealth, which I think is right. Unfortunately, I cannot therefore support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 73.
I move amendment 30.
I start by confirming that the Government will support Lorna Slater’s amendment 21, which makes the list of measures in section 1(3) mandatory rather than discretionary. It is right that a core compulsory suite of measures is covered in a community wealth building ministerial statement. However, a fit-for-purpose core set was included in the bill at introduction, subject to some small modifications, which are the subject of my amendments in the next group.
My amendment in this group, amendment 71, seeks to make it clear that, although community wealth building is an economic policy that can make a contribution to growth, the form of growth that we seek is sustainable and inclusive.
I know that Lorna Slater lodged amendment 70 to remove section 1(2)(b) from the bill entirely, but I consider the pursuit of growth to be critical for Scotland’s economic future and a core objective of the bill, and I do not think that the bill mentions GDP per se. I hope that the member will withdraw her amendment and support the amendment in my name to clarify the nature of the growth that is sought. I urge all members to support my amendment 71.
The Government will support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 72, although there is room for debate about whether any particular economic growth is or is not in line with the United Nations resolution referenced in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, to which the amendment refers. The community wealth building statement can encompass that, even if the UN goals are due to be reviewed in 2030. I urge members to support amendment 72 and the associated amendment 117.
The Government position on all other amendments in the group is not to support them. I will take each in turn briefly. Amendment 30 is not required, chiefly as the pillars of community wealth building are already reflected, albeit not specifically referred to, in section 1(3) of the bill as introduced. I also have concerns that there may not be universal agreement about what the five pillars of community wealth building comprise, and that using such high-level concepts in legislation without defining them could create uncertainty. Their implementation can best be taken forward in guidance.
On amendment 73, in Sarah Boyack’s name, highlighting community organisations and local businesses as the intended beneficiaries of community wealth building activity is too narrow. The amendment would restrict the measures that ministers could take in the community wealth building statement to those supporting the generation, circulation and retention of wealth only by community organisations and local businesses, not more broadly. Therefore, the amendment does not attract Government support.
Although I understand that Sarah Boyack’s amendment 74 has the same intention as Lorna Slater’s amendment 21, I ask the member to withdraw amendment 74 and support amendment 21. In essence, it comes down to the word “must” being stronger and less ambiguous than “should” in this context.
Regarding amendment 40, in Lorna Slater’s name, the Government’s position is that such activity in the energy policy context is best taken forward in guidance. The Government wants to avoid a lengthy prescriptive list of mandatory measures in the bill that must feature in a ministerial statement, and the current drafting offers flexibility for those matters to be included without being specifically mentioned in the bill.
The Government does not support Lorna Slater’s amendment 32, as the actions set out in the statement will need time to evidence support of the delivery of national planning framework outcomes. Describing in the statement the relevant indicators of success for community wealth building is an approach that any Government should consider. However, in my view, it is not appropriate for primary legislation to oblige future Administrations to abide by an overly exacting list of mandatory demands as to how they should approach the preparation of the statement.
Finally, on amendment 79, in the name of Lorna Slater, local authorities are already under a statutory duty in section 102 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 to establish and maintain a register of property held by the authority as part of the common good. That duty has been in force since June 2018. If local authorities are not complying with a statutory duty within a reasonable timescale, I am not clear that including provision in a statement will be effective in bringing them into compliance. To the extent that there is an issue with non-compliance by local authorities, the community wealth building statements proposed by this bill are not, in my view, the place to address that.
I will make one or two more general points, if I may, convener. It is clear that there is widespread support for the bill among stakeholders, but it is important that we give community wealth building the best chance to succeed. That requires a clear focus and requires the bill to create a consistent platform for implementation. It is therefore important to avoid unnecessary administration burdens on public bodies, local authorities and others. The guidance in that regard—you will be aware of the work that we have done on that—is important.
I call Sarah Boyack to speak to amendment 72 and any other amendments in the group.
I have four amendments in the group, which were crafted with the assistance of Community Land Scotland. The amendments aim to strengthen the bill by ensuring that its general principles prioritise community organisations’ and local businesses’ retention of the wealth that is generated.
My amendment 72 would ensure that the general aims and outcomes of the bill are in
“line with the United Nations sustainable development goals”.
That is absolutely critical. The amended wording would mirror the language of the national performance framework, recognising that financial wealth cannot be separated from social, cultural, environmental and community wealth. I welcome the minister’s support for my amendment 72.
My amendments 73 and 74 would insert stronger wording to ensure that the measures truly promote opportunity, development and equality—which are crucial and should not be options—for community organisations. My amendment 117 would ensure that the UN sustainable development goals are properly defined and included in the legislation.
I hope that we will have constructive discussions. Some amendments present slight variations in wording options, such as among “must”, “should” and “may”. Even if it is not possible for all our amendments to be agreed to, I hope that, when we get to the votes, we will strengthen the bill.
Murdo Fraser would like to come in.
The convener will be pleased to know that I do not intend to comment on every amendment in the group or in subsequent groups. However, I will briefly share some general thoughts on the Conservatives’ approach to the bill.
We very much support the concept of community wealth building, and we support the bill in principle. I was a little dismayed to see so many amendments, many of which deal with matters that, in my view, are extraneous and should not form part of the bill at all.
In my view, as community wealth building plans are to be determined by other bodies—public bodies or, in some cases, local authorities—we should not try to tie their hands, particularly not those of local authorities, by setting very prescriptive rules centrally about what they can or should not do. That should be a matter for local determination and local decision making. On that basis, there are a number of amendments that we will discuss later that the Conservatives will not support, because we do not think that the Scottish Parliament should be telling local authorities how they should set out the community wealth building plans.
I associate myself with the minister’s closing comments about the need for focus, which could get lost if we accept too many amendments that would restrict the flexibility of bodies, including local councils, in drawing up their plans while taking into account the views of stakeholders whom the plans have to relate to. That is our general approach.
I will comment briefly on a couple of the amendments. Lorna Slater will not be hugely surprised to hear that we will not support her amendment 70, which seeks to remove the reference to economic growth. In our view, economic growth is absolutely essential if we are to deliver the successful Scotland that we all want. We therefore want to see that wording retained. I am a bit disappointed with the minister for feeling that he has to qualify the term “economic growth” through amendment 71. That is probably unnecessary, and we will not support that amendment.
I will also briefly comment on the group.
I associate myself with members’ comments in support for the general principles of the bill and about the need for a bill that provides a useful and practical framework for the organisations that will be tasked with developing community wealth building plans.
I will comment briefly on amendment 70. I associate myself with the minister’s comments. I do not think that “economic growth” is such a narrowly drawn term; it can be interpreted in different ways. In my view, it is about ensuring that we have an economy that develops. Growth can be measured in a number of ways, including in terms of productivity, individual income and the progression of equality and equity in local economies. All those things can be encompassed within a concept of economic growth and are the types of economic growth that we want in our communities and that we want to ensure that community wealth building develops.
I invite Lorna Slater to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 30.
I have no additional remarks, convener. I will press amendment 30.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
I remind members that if amendment 70 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 71 and 72 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 70 moved—[Lorna Slater].
For
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
The question is, that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendment 73 moved—[Sarah Boyack].
The question is, that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 73 disagreed to.
Amendment 40 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 40 disagreed to.
We move to the next group of amendments. Amendment 46, in the name of Richard Leonard, is grouped with amendments 47 to 50, 41, 119, 1 to 3, 31, 75, 76, 4, 22, 42, 43, 77, 78, 120, 51, 80, 121, 81, 58, 59, 36, 44, 126, 13 to 15, 37, 86 to 88, 16, 24, 45, 89, 90 and 127.
I invite Richard Leonard to speak to and move amendment 46.
Thank you very much, convener.
What these amendments attempt to do is to promote and realise the potential of employee ownership in the economy. Instead of being quite so reliant on foreign direct investment, and instead of continuing to become more and more of a branch plant economy, we need to look at ways in which we can reintroduce more local and democratic forms of control. Employee ownership has been shown to be good for the retention and creation of jobs, and good for local and inclusive economic development, and it also cultivates longer-term thinking.
I have been an advocate of a Marcora-style law for some time. The Marcora law dates back to 1985, after Giovanni Marcora—a right-wing Italian politician, actually—introduced a statutory right for workers in Italy to be able to buy an enterprise that they worked in if it was facing closure or bankruptcy. It has since been amended to give those workers a preferential right—a right of first refusal—and it commutes their redundancy payments and three years’ worth of future unemployment benefits to help give them the capital to make the conversion. In turn, that is matched by the state on a one-to-one lira—and, more recently, euro—basis, and there is also support from co-operative federation funds.
Amendment 49 is an attempt to fashion that Marcora idea within our legislative competence here. In so doing, it would broaden the statutory right, so that it could apply not just in circumstances of bankruptcy or closure, but in the event of a business being up for sale; if the owner was, perhaps, looking for a succession plan, or if the business was the subject of a takeover or faced downsizing. In those circumstances, there would be a right for workers to make a bid to take the enterprise over. For me, this captures the spirit of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and brings them into the arena of industrial reform.
Richard Leonard makes a really interesting case, but does he think that his proposal really fits into this bill, which is about something somewhat different—that is, the preparation of community wealth building plans?
Yes, I think that it is absolutely central to the bill, because it is about retaining wealth in a local area and looking at ways in which we can wealth build in a community. What I am describing is a community of interest as manifested in the workforce. I also think that the proposal is in keeping with a long-standing tradition in Scotland that goes back not just to Robert Owen and New Lanark, but—and I say this to Mr Coffey—to 1761 and the Fenwick Weavers Society, which was the first co-operative society ever created.
Amendments 46 and 50 would add some practical measures that are within competence for inclusion in the community wealth building statement. Amendment 46 is a recognition that, while statutory redundancy payments and the regime that governs them are reserved, under Scots law, contract law is devolved. Again borrowing from the example of the Marcora law, which is long standing, I have sought to look at ways in which we can, within our competence, use equivalent measures. We have come up with the idea that any statutory redundancy—that is, contractual redundancy that is maybe written into an employee handbook or is in some written contractual form—could be called on to be brought forward to be commuted.
The member wants to have something in the bill that includes reference to ministers “encouraging businesses”. How exactly would we frame a statutory responsibility on a minister when using words such as “encouraging”?
We start from where we are. I would like to have seen a much more ambitious bill in the first place, but this is largely a framework bill that is about laying down markers, and that is about encouraging rather than necessarily directly acting. What I am proposing with the amendments is that the measures are included in the ministerial plan and any future ministerial statement, and that the issue is addressed at that level.
Does the member accept that encouraging is a form of action, though?
I will talk about encouraging in another context shortly, and that might be a better way of showing exactly what I mean, and a recognition of where some of the limitations are.
Amendment 50 is an attempt to bring up the idea that, in the context of an employee-owned conversion, there could be a financing member that is external to the enterprise. Again, the committee will be very familiar with the work that Scottish Enterprise and other enterprise agencies do in trying to pitch to business angels and other external financial sources to help invest in the Scottish economy.
Amendment 47, which also relates to the ministerial statement, raises the important issue, again in the context of community wealth building, of challenging outsourcing. That is to understand that a founding principle of community wealth building is to stop leakage and to build greater self-sufficiency in a local economy. In my view, we should be encouraging insourcing and not outsourcing of public services. We have seen good examples of that in recent years. The most recent Audit Scotland report on the national health service has shown evidence of the extent to which bank and agency nursing has been reduced, and more of those services are now provided in-house. More widely than that, Mr Coffey will be familiar with HMP Kilmarnock, which was outsourced and has now been insourced, and of Cumnock community hospital, which was outsourced and is now insourced. In Lanarkshire, where Serco had the contract at Wishaw general hospital, that has now been insourced. On the railways, where Abellio and Serco had the contracts, those have now been insourced. So, what I am talking about in the amendment is perfectly consistent with the positions that have been taken in this session of Parliament.
With your indulgence, convener, I am also bound to draw on a recent STUC-commissioned report into outsourcing, which pointed out that the outsourcing of social care and soft facilities, which are often the services that are outsourced, in effect means that women’s jobs are much more likely to be outsourced than men’s jobs. That is a consideration.
Paragraph 9.3 of the STUC report addresses the five pillars of community wealth building. It says:
“Each of these elements”
of community wealth building
“is undermined by the outsourcing of public services. Smaller economic delivery units are most likely to re-spend money earned from providing services at a local level; the smallest economic unit of delivery is directly employed staff, and the shortest supply chain is direct provision.”
10:45
I turn to my amendment 48, which is also on the proposed ministerial statement. Democratic forms of ownership and financial services are, again, part and parcel of what we should be encouraging in community wealth building legislation that is passed by this Parliament. Mutually owned banks and building societies, credit unions and municipal banks should be part and parcel of the mosaic of community wealth building, which we should be considering the promotion of. I recognise that it was a feature of the committee’s stage 1 report, in paragraphs 114 to 124, which said:
“Finance is one of the five pillars of CWB”,
and I reflect on the fact that the deputy convener referred to that in her speech during the stage 1 debate.
I have dealt with amendments 49 and 50.
Amendment 51 is, again, on the ministerial statement ask, and it calls on Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, South of Scotland Enterprise and the Scottish National Investment Bank to
“encourage and support … employee-owned businesses.”
I reflect on the fact that the chair of the Scottish National Investment Bank, Willie Watt, at a meeting of the Public Audit Committee, told me:
“employee ownership is to be encouraged, because it is good from the point of view of aligning the workforce with the success of the organisation and its long-term nature. I have long been a supporter of employee ownership.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 25 June 2025; c 35.]
What I am doing through amendment 51 is literally reflecting that view. I am also amplifying one of the principal conclusions of the Scottish Government’s review that looked into inclusive and democratic business models. Chaired by Neil McInroy, the review was launched in September 2024, and, in recommendation 11, it called for the Scottish Government to
“Grow the role of the Scottish National Investment Bank … to intentionally and specifically support”
inclusive democratic business models.
I will finish with amendments 58 and 59, which go back to insourcing rather than outsourcing municipal banks, mutual banks and building societies, and credit unions, but which, in this context, address local community wealth building partnerships.
I move amendment 46.
Like other colleagues, I have lodged amendments in this group to add detail to the measures that are to be taken. Through the amendments, I explicitly call out fair work, community transport, support for co-operatives and community energy. In the interest of time, I will highlight only a few of the amendments.
On my amendments 2 and 14, it looks as though the minister has lodged amendments 75 and 87 to cover the same ground, so I am content not to move those amendments.
Amendment 36 seeks to clarify that commissioning and procurement are separate but related activities to ensure that local authorities are fully able to include commissioning in their wealth building planning.
Amendments 31 and 37 relate to when local authorities and public bodies dispose of land and other assets, and it seeks to ensure that they must think of something other than getting the most money. They must also consider how the asset fits into the community’s vision for itself and the common good. That is vital to local authorities being able to implement each community’s vision for itself.
Amendments 4 and 16 seek to include the consideration of local climate resilience and mitigation in community wealth building, for example through distributed or local power generation to ease local generation in the case of storm damage to the grid; or through flood protections for the community and of community land.
Amendment 22 seeks to recognise the importance of constructive and collaborative joint venture opportunities between communities and public bodies. If the amendment were agreed to, that would be an important step to formalising those relationships and creating new opportunities, but I am interested to hear what colleagues have to say on the amendment, and we will then consider whether to move it.
On amendment 43, I say to the minister that I am not sure that legislation is needed for the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government, and I would like to hear the Scottish Government commit to undertaking such work. If the minister is able to commit to that, I will not move amendment 43.
I am content with and will support many of the amendments from my colleagues in this group, but there are a few that I find problematic and cannot support. In the interest of time, I will highlight just a few of those, in the hope that we can revisit them at stage 3.
The first half of Richard Leonard’s amendment 50 is fine, but I cannot support the second half. My understanding is that the whole point of the Scottish National Investment Bank is its independence and freedom from Government interference in its investment decisions. It is right that that is so. Any attempt through legislation to get the Scottish Government to lean on the bank would undermine its independence, and I will not support any amendments that seek to do that. The only exception to that will be Richard Leonard’s amendment 51, which is sufficiently vague not to undermine the bank in that way. [Laughter.]
If that is the case, I will not move it.
On the Government’s amendments 76 and 88, I would like members to pay close attention, as I am particularly worried. My concern is that their phrasing may cover external and foreign investment, which is exactly the opposite of community wealth building, the whole point of which is for communities of Scottish people to acquire assets and build wealth, not to bring in external people who will invest and acquire assets for themselves. On the face of it, those amendments appear to totally undermine the purpose of the bill, and I strongly request that the Scottish Government does not move them but reconsiders the wording before stage 3; otherwise, it risks undermining the bill altogether.
I agree with the idea in Paul Sweeney’s amendment 119, but I am not sure that he has put it into the right part of the bill, so I will not support the amendment.
On amendment 120, I am unclear about what Paul Sweeney proposes. Is it that ministers lean on credit unions to make potentially bad loans? That would not make sense. I would support an amendment that supported new credit unions, the expansion of credit unions or the engagement of community groups with credit unions, but I cannot support amendment 120 as worded.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendments in the group. Their general context in the bill is that Scotland has one of the most foreign-owned economies in the world and is one of only a handful of such countries that is rich and developed but is not a microstate or an outright tax haven.
Although we do not often speak about the balance of payments or the capital and financial accounts in our economy, a good indicator is a comparison of Scotland’s gross domestic product with its gross national income. At the start of this parliamentary session, £36.5 billion was extracted from Scotland, largely in the form of profits and dividends to foreign companies and shareholders, while only £26.4 billion flowed into Scotland, largely as foreign investment income. That created a net outward flow of £10.1 billion in 2020-21. The need for measures in the bill to retain more wealth under domestic ownership is important, and my amendments seek to do that in meaningful and practical ways.
Amendment 119 seeks to broaden the bill slightly by adding the purchasing of community shares as an optional measure to fulfil the goal of reducing inequality and supporting economic growth.
Amendment 120 would add credit unions simply by mentioning them as bodies that can be supported and promoted. When we consider community groups, it is vital that credit unions, which underpin so many financial transactions, particularly in working-class areas of Scotland, are encouraged to flourish, and they should be explicitly mentioned in the bill.
Amendment 80 seeks to encourage steps by the Scottish ministers to encourage and support the Scottish National Investment Bank to develop a community wealth fund; to work with relevant public bodies and community organisations to provide financing for community wealth building projects; and to advise on the strategic use of community benefit payments, including from a change of land use, renewable energy projects and seed funding for community-led wealth building projects.
Securing funding for community wealth building activities is essential to ensuring that local communities and other organisations can take full advantage of the economic transformation that those activities provide. Simply grant funding them is not sufficient. Patient finance is important. The creation of a community wealth fund has been the subject of much discussion over the past couple of years, with detailed proposals for such a fund being put forward by the Scottish community coalition on energy. Those proposals would allow for the strategic and democratic use of additional payments from major renewable energy and infrastructure projects, most of which are in foreign ownership, and major land use change projects to seed fund community wealth building projects around the country.
Amendment 80 aligns with Sarah Boyack’s amendments 78 and 90, which set out that the community wealth building guidance, action plans and statement that the bill will introduce should refer to the community wealth fund. Amendment 80 would mandate a role for the Scottish National Investment Bank in providing finance for community wealth building activities, including the community wealth fund. In that context, it should be noted that one of the bank’s three missions is about place, and account should be taken of the transformational potential of expanding access to finance that is generally not currently provided by commercial banks.
As the committee noted at stage 1, the Scottish National Investment Bank should have a prominent role in supporting economic development. It should play a key role as a public sector leader and a source of potential patient capital and underwriting for community wealth building. Amendment 80 would set out in the bill the bank’s important role in that regard.
In seeking to provide that the Scottish National Investment Bank must encourage community wealth building, amendment 121 would allow for a more holistic approach to be taken to economic growth, and it would put investment—sustained investment through ownership, rather than one-off windfalls—at the heart of community wealth building.
Amendment 126 seeks to add the purchasing of community shares as an optional measure to fulfil the goal of reducing inequality and supporting economic growth as part of the community wealth building plan, which is the norm in many other European countries.
Amendment 127 seeks to encourage credit unions, as organisations that have members who would benefit from community wealth building plans, to be part of that ecosystem.
This is a large group of amendments, so I will try to be brief. I will begin by talking to the five amendments in my name, and I will then comment on those that other members have lodged.
Amendments 75 and 87 will ensure that supported businesses are listed in the bill, alongside employee-owned businesses, co-operatives and social enterprises. Supported businesses are important to many disabled workers who want to access work, and amendments 75 and 87 will ensure that promoting supported businesses can feature in the statement and the local community wealth building action plans. The Scottish Government intends to support amendment 21, in the name of Lorna Slater, which is in a different group, and, under amendment 75, commentary on supported businesses will have to feature in the ministerial statement.
The intention of amendments 76 and 88 is to ensure, by referring to the promotion of access to investment opportunities, that the financial pillar of community wealth building is represented in the list of measures that may feature in the statement and local action plans.
Amendment 81 will future proof the ministerial statement. Giving the Scottish ministers, through regulation, the power to modify the list of measures that feature in the ministerial statement is prudent, especially if amendment 21 is supported. Furthermore, it is right that any regulation of that nature should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I urge members to support those five amendments in my name.
Although I appreciate the motivation for all the other amendments in the group, which have been lodged by colleagues, and while my door is open to further discussion prior to stage 3, I confirm that the Government’s position is to resist all amendments in the group, apart from Lorna Slater’s amendments 3, 4, 36, 15 and 16, Richard Leonard’s amendment 51 and Rhoda Grant’s amendment 86. I urge members to support those amendments, but not the others in the group.
I will quickly set out the rationale for the Government’s position with reference to the amendments that have been lodged by colleagues. I see merit in exploring through further policy dialogue the proposals that Richard Leonard has made in his amendments—other than those in amendment 51, which we support. I think that more consultation is required with stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as well as further consideration from a legal and cost standpoint, before a proposition for primary legislation can be framed. As I have indicated in my conversations with Mr Leonard, I am sympathetic to the concepts in the Marcora approach and the Italian legislation, but a significant part of that would impinge on reserved legislation with regard to corporate law and employment law, and that would need to be considered.
Co-operatives are already in the bill. Section 1(3)(f) explicitly mentions
“supporting the development of … co-operatives”.
11:00
I understand Richard Leonard’s intentions on insourcing, but the unintended consequence of setting out a preference for insourcing over outsourcing is that it would prevent the very businesses that we are trying to support locally from gaining contracts with public enterprises via public procurement. The work of the economic democracy group, which was formed following a recommendation in the Scottish Government-commissioned independent review on developing Scotland’s inclusive and democratic businesses, should include consideration of Richard Leonard’s proposals alongside all recommendations made in that review.
I appreciate Lorna Slater’s strong interest in the bill and the work that she has done on a range of amendments. However, the Government’s position is to resist all members’ amendments in this group except those that I have already indicated support for. Although I have sympathy with some of the policy ideas that drive many of the amendments, they need further consultation and, in some cases, detailed consideration of extant law.
As I have said, I want to keep the bill focused on economic development, and specifically on the creation of a new local format for local economic development actions. Other policy areas feed into the development of a successful economy, but I do not want to overburden future community wealth building ministerial statements with mandatory requirements to include matters that stray across too wide a range of Government policies. In keeping with all the stage 2 amendments that Opposition members have lodged, I expect my officials to feature the ideas that have driven them in future community wealth building policy development, including in the preparation of guidance, which, as I have indicated, is already under way.
For similar reasons, the Government’s position is to resist the amendments in Paul Sweeney’s name in the group. As I have set out, they need more policy development and stakeholder dialogue, as well as work on resultant costs. Again, I am interested in the themes that are raised by the amendments, and I look forward to having further policy dialogue in the next parliamentary session. However, it is too early to commit such proposals to primary legislation without that work being done.
Sarah Boyack’s amendments focus on promoting the creation of a community wealth fund on the part of the Scottish ministers and on local community wealth building partnerships. That is a complex area of work that requires more design, thinking and dialogue, which I am happy to engage with the member on.
I invite Sarah Boyack to speak to amendment 78 and other amendments in the group.
I have two amendments in the group, which would ensure that
“promoting the creation of a Community Wealth Fund and the strategic use of community benefit payments from land use change and renewable energy projects”
to
“support the development of community-led projects”
was prioritised and included in the bill.
By embedding the promotion of such a fund in the bill, we would create a pathway for communities to benefit directly from the economic activity that takes place around them, not as an afterthought but as a core principle. That approach would ensure that the wealth that was generated from our natural assets and the transition to renewables was recycled back into local priorities, so that it supported projects that communities design, lead and control.
Last night, the cross-party group on islands and the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency held a joint meeting. We heard directly about the huge benefits to local communities of co-operative, community-owned and municipally owned renewables and heat projects investing in Scotland. Rather than wealth being exported, the communities directly benefit and shape the benefits. The statistic that was used last night was that less than 1 per cent of the wind energy that is produced in Scotland is from community-owned facilities. We need to make the most of that huge opportunity.
Richard Leonard’s amendments are really important. Amendments 50 and 51 make particularly important points. The importance of Co-operative Development Scotland and the Scottish National Investment Bank needs to be higher up our agenda. Both could and should play an important role, which should be reflected in legislation.
Amendment 51, which sets out that ministers must encourage Scottish Enterprise, South of Scotland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to practically support employee-owned companies, is crucial, because we need to ensure that such opportunities are available.
I am keen to support Lorna Slater’s amendments 41 to 45 on procurement so that local community co-operatives and social enterprises can benefit from the transition to renewables. Paul Sweeney’s amendment 119 seeks to empower and support communities through credit unions and community wealth funds.
There are many good amendments in the group. I take the minister’s point that we cannot use them all, but the ambition behind the amendments that I have mentioned is critical, and they should be included in the bill. A community wealth fund and the strategic use of community benefit payments will be crucial and will create many opportunities.
Are you creating a lengthy wish list of things that you would like to see happening, when the bill is not intended to be used for that purpose? We share and support the core concepts of community wealth building, but would making a huge list with many different dimensions and aspects encumber the bill and take it in a direction that is quite different from the intention when it was drafted?
Respectfully, I disagree with your point. If you were to come back to the Parliament in five years to see what difference the legislation had made, you would see that the bill could not deliver the transformation that it aspires to without these amendments. We all support the aspiration, but it is about delivery, which is a key lesson for the Parliament. This is not just about warm words—it is about ensuring that organisations are able and supported to deliver the changes and to meet the bill’s ambition.
Amendment 86 would add to the list of measures that may be used by a community wealth building partnership to facilitate and support the
“generation, circulation and retention of wealth”
in the local economy. It explicitly recognises common good property as a strategic asset for community wealth building. The amendment seeks to ensure that relevant public bodies use common good property as part of their action plans to deliver community wealth building.
The Scottish Land Commission has explained that common good property is regulated by the Common Good Act 1491, which is still in force today. It provides the legal status for common good assets and created an obligation that they would be managed for the benefit of the citizens of what was then the burgh. Historically, common good property was given to the people of the relevant burgh. Over time, that property has largely been subsumed into local authorities. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 introduced responsibilities for local authorities on the registration, use and disposal of common good assets. However, the way in which that has been interpreted varies widely between local authorities.
Reform of common good legislation must be addressed in the next session of the Parliament, but it would be a missed opportunity if the bill did not acknowledge the important role of those assets in generating local wealth. It would also help to add transparency on which common good assets are owned by local authorities and how they could be better used to promote local wealth building, not least through transfer to community ownership in some instances.
I welcome the Government’s support for amendment 86 and urge the committee to support it. It was lodged with the help of Community Land Scotland to ensure that local authorities consider those assets proactively and that they unlock their potential for social justice, sustainability and local prosperity.
As no other members wish to speak, I invite Richard Leonard to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 46.
Thank heavens for small mercies. I thank the minister for accepting amendment 51, although I realise that it is subject to the committee’s views. I also thank him for his dialogue and for his offer of continuing dialogue between stages 2 and 3, which I will certainly take up. I welcome his open approach.
The minister’s suggestion that some of my amendments are better addressed to the economic democracy group would be all well and good if the economic democracy group had been established and was meeting, but it is my understanding that it is not. That is an interesting theoretical suggestion from the minister, but not one that we can actively take up.
On the issue of insourcing, I do not see that purely as an issue of procurement, although I have an amendment on procurement later, which will be considered by the committee at stage 2. If you look at the examples that I gave, I do not think that HMP Kilmarnock was subject to some kind of franchising or procurement exercise when it was decided to bring the prison back in-house. ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper service are other examples that the minister’s own Government has been prepared to implement. I recognise the point that the minister made in the stage 1 debate, about what procurement looks like, but I think that we should also be looking at insourcing versus outsourcing, not just in a procurement context. As I said, I have an amendment on procurement to come.
The final thing that I would say to the minister and committee members is that, if they have not already done so, they should visit some employee-owned businesses, such as, for Mr Fraser, Carlton Bingo in Dunfermline, which I went to. Carlton Bingo has bingo halls in Stirling and other places. Sarah Boyack and Lorna Slater would be interested in Jerba Campervans in the Lothians. For Mr Kerr, there is Clansman Dynamics in East Kilbride, which is part of the Central Scotland region. I am sure that the deputy convener, as well as Mr Kerr and I, will have an interest in Your Equipment Solutions in Falkirk. Then there is Auchrannie Resort in Arran. I look to Mr Coffey for that—although it is not in his constituency, it is employee owned and an important part of that regional economy. Let me finish with Mr Stewart. I can recommend the Krakatoa music bar venue on the quayside in Aberdeen as a fine example of an employee-owned business that really includes its workforce. Those are wonderful, pioneering businesses.
Yesterday, in the budget debate, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government said:
“Scotland is a country of innovators and wealth creators.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; c 16.]
I think that those are great examples of innovation and wealth creation. I can think of no finer examples than those, and we should be using the bill to encourage the development and advancement of that part of our economy.
I notice that you missed my constituency. Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative is a fine example of employee ownership.
The question is, that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 46 disagreed to.
Amendment 47 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 47 disagreed to.
Amendment 48 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 48 disagreed to.
11:15
Amendment 49 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 49 disagreed to.
Amendment 50 moved—[Richard Leonard].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 50 disagreed to.
Amendment 21, in the name of Lorna Slater, has already been debated with amendment 30. I remind members that amendments 21 and 74 are direct alternatives, so they can both be moved and decided on. The text of whichever is the last amendment to be agreed will appear in the bill.
Amendment 21 moved—[Lorna Slater]—and agreed to.
Amendment 74 not moved.
Amendment 41 moved—[Lorna Slater].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Amendment 3 moved—[Lorna Slater].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 31 disagreed to.
Amendment 75 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.
Amendment 76 moved—[Ivan McKee].
The question is, that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Against
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment 22 not moved.
Amendment 42 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 42 disagreed to.
Amendment 43 not moved.
Amendment 77 moved—[Lorna Slater].
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 77 disagreed to.
Amendment 78 moved—[Sarah Boyack].
The question is, that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 78 disagreed to.
Amendment 120 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 120 disagreed to.
Amendment 32 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 32 disagreed to.
Amendment 33, in the name of Lorna Slater, is grouped with amendments 35, 54, 82, 83, 55 and 56.
Amendments 33 and 35, which seek to set standards for monitoring and data logging, including against agreed national metrics, would help put into place proper measurement of the progress on community wealth building, and would also give us the data to understand the starting points and disparity between Scottish regions.
I support amendment 82, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on reporting on impact. However, I am not convinced of the value of an independent review on top of all the reporting measures, so I will not support amendment 83.
On amendment 54, I think that Richard Leonard has the right idea, but surely the reference to “details” in the amendment would undermine commercial confidentiality. After all, co-operatives are still commercial enterprises and have the same confidentiality needs as other businesses. I hope that the member will consider revisiting and altering the amendment for stage 3.
As for amendments 55 and 56, again in the name of Richard Leonard, I do not think that annual reviews are a good use of resources. You would just have finished one report and then would have to start another, and that would impede progress.
I move amendment 33.
11:30
I call Richard Leonard to speak to amendment 54 and other amendments in the group.
The review group’s report, which was published in September 2024 and to which we have already referred this morning, had the full title of “Developing Scotland’s Economy: Increasing The Role Of Inclusive And Democratic Business Models”. In its opening pages, it said about inclusive and democratic business models that
“Around the world, they are not considered a ‘sideline’ to the mainstream economy, but a vital, growing and essential part of economic success.”
To achieve the goal of mainstreaming such models and making them successful, we must collect data and measure what is happening. My amendment 54 picks up from the review group’s findings—namely, recommendation 3, which states:
“Investment in data and evidence on IDBMs is required to support policy and service design.”
That is the main point that I wanted to make on this group of amendments. More generally, I think that there need to be transparency, openness and data sharing, so that we can make informed public policy choices.
I have two amendments in the group, which are both aimed at strengthening accountability in the community wealth building statement process.
Amendment 82 would ensure that the annual statement reports on not just the actions that are taken but their impact in delivering the aims that are set out in section 1(2). That would shift the focus from activity to outcomes so that we can see whether community wealth building is genuinely making a difference on the ground. I welcome Lorna Slater’s support for that amendment.
Amendment 83 would require ministers to set out how they have responded to any recommendations from the independent review, and, if they have not acted on them, to explain why. That would prevent recommendations from being ignored and ensure a clear line of accountability between independent scrutiny and Government action.
Together, those amendments would make the reporting process more transparent, more meaningful and more responsive to evidence. Richard Leonard’s points about transparency and inclusivity are also important. The amendments in this group are about strengthening the legislation, and I hope that colleagues can support them today.
The Government’s position is to resist all amendments in this group except amendment 82. I ask members who have lodged the remaining amendments to withdraw them, and I will briefly explain why.
With regard to amendment 82, in the name of Sarah Boyack, the provision in the bill as it stands is proportionate in respect of progress reporting. However, reporting on the impact of the community wealth building statement and the measures that are contained in it, in the way that is suggested by the amendment, might complement the bill, so I am content to support that amendment.
Sarah Boyack has lodged amendment 108, which would oblige the Scottish ministers to commission an independent review of the impact of the measures in the statement, and her amendment 83 relates to reporting on the steps taken in response to such a review. The Government’s position is that it should be accountable to Parliament and that primary legislation is not required for a future Administration to commission an independent review. Our position is therefore not to support amendment 108 in group 9 or amendment 83 in this group, to which it is linked.
On amendments 33 and 35, regarding the use of metrics, substantial dialogue would be needed with COSLA and others before the inclusion of commentary on metrics in the guidance. The guidance that must be prepared under section 9 will be developed alongside the ministerial statement, and that guidance is the appropriate place to set out advice on monitoring progress. That is particularly important at the local level, where economic structures vary significantly between communities. At the national level, community wealth building connects to many other policy areas, so guidance will ensure coherence and alignment across those links. Work on measurement at large should be conducted as part of the guidance work strand. That will inform the approach of ministers as to what could be in a national statement about targets and objectives.
Amendment 54, in Richard Leonard’s name, specifically highlights reporting on businesses that are operating with inclusive and democratic business models. That issue may well feature in reports on progress that are required under section 4. However, the amendment is too specific in obliging reporting on certain types of businesses only.
The Government does not support Richard Leonard’s amendments 55 and 56, which seek a move to a yearly reporting cycle instead of five-yearly reporting. Such a short reporting interval is not desirable in a policy context where change in outcome terms needs to be measured and observed over a longer timescale.
I therefore urge members not to press or move those amendments, and, if they are pressed or moved, not to support them.
I invite Lorna Slater to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 33.
I have no further remarks to make, other than to press amendment 33.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 33 disagreed to.
Amendment 51 moved—[Richard Leonard].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Amendment 79 moved—[Lorna Slater].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 79 disagreed to.
Amendment 80 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 80 disagreed to.
Amendment 121 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 121 disagreed to.
Amendment 122, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is grouped with amendments 123, 23, 5, 52, 34 and 53.
Amendment 122 seeks to insert a requirement for the Scottish ministers to respond to the “Developing Scotland’s Economy” report. That would be an important measure, as it would add democratic business models to the heart of the bill by making it a requirement for the Scottish ministers to respond to the report, which explores inclusive and democratic business models, and then to actively consider how that should be integrated into the community wealth building statements.
Amendment 123 gives the Scottish ministers the opportunity to include community share and bond models as a way of allowing community benefit societies or co-operatives to issue shares and fundraising assets. That creates the option for more democratic and inclusive business models, allowing for greater diversification of Scotland’s community wealth.
I move amendment 122.
I invite Lorna Slater to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group.
Amendment 23 brings consideration of just transition principles into the bill. Amendment 34 is a proposal to integrate the five community wealth building pillars into the bill in a slightly different way than my previous amendments 30 and 32. By structuring the statement’s objectives around the five community wealth building pillars and connecting them to the national performance framework outcomes, the bill can hardwire community wealth building into Scotland’s broader economic, social and environmental architecture.
On Murdo Fraser’s amendment 5, the member and I have both proposed amendments that include businesses to varying degrees, so I think that we all spotted the same gap. Perhaps the minister has proposed amendments on that as well. However, I prefer my approach, so I will not be supporting Murdo Fraser’s amendment on this occasion.
Amendment 53, from Richard Leonard, again, has too frequent reporting and is not a good use of resources. Amendment 123, from Paul Sweeney, is a bit awkwardly worded and specific. Again, I think that Paul Sweeney is on the right track, but perhaps he should reconsider the wording before stage 3.
I invite Murdo Fraser to speak to amendment 5 and other amendments in the group.
I am delighted that Lorna Slater and I are in the same space on this at least. My amendment 5 states that, in preparing the community wealth building statement, ministers are required to consult with businesses that might be affected by that. In line with my earlier comments, I have taken a very modest approach to amendments to the bill and have lodged only four amendments. Later, we will come to a similar amendment of mine on the preparation of community wealth building plans, which includes a requirement to consult with businesses. In order to be consistent, I wanted to lodge this amendment so that ministers, when preparing the draft statement, will also consult with businesses, given that they are likely to be impacted by what is in that statement from the Scottish ministers.
I invite Richard Leonard to speak to amendment 52 and other amendments in the group.
Amendment 52 simply seeks to insert into the legislation Co-operative Development Scotland, which was established in 2006. It has, in my view, been cut to the bone. It has been allowed to wither on the vine. It is woefully underresourced, although I have not had a chance to look at yesterday’s budget announcement. The long-term position is that it has been allowed to become marginalised.
Somebody said to me that there is one part-time member of staff working on employee ownership and one member of staff working on co-operative development. For Co-operative Development Scotland, that is a clear indication of massive underresourcing. It still appears on the enterprise agencies’ websites as the arm of the enterprise agencies for co-operative development. It is still on the Scottish Enterprise website, advertising one-to-one sessions with specialist advisers for those interested in converting to co-operative and employee ownership. For that reason, I think it should be explicitly included in the bill.
My second amendment in this group, amendment 53, revisits the suggestion from the Government that we review statements and plans only once every five years. I am quite interested in five-year plans when it comes to economic development—[Laughter.]—but I reflect on the fact that an interval of five years could mean that a statement is not made within a session of Parliament.
I am concerned, from listening to what Lorna Slater said, that perhaps she thinks that an annual return to such things, which is my Chartist instinct, is too frequent, but I put it to her and to others who take that view that every five years is far too big an interval. For that reason, my amendment asks the committee to consider a statement being produced every year.
No other members have indicated that they wish to speak, so I invite the minister to respond on behalf of the Government.
The Government’s position is to resist all amendments in the group, except for amendments 23 and 34, in Lorna Slater’s name.
With regard to amendment 23, ministers are already obliged to
“have regard to the just transition principles set out in section 35C of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009”,
so the amendment is not essential, but, in order to strengthen the obligation in an economic policy context, we are, on balance, able to support it.
11:45
With regard to amendment 122, the economic democracy group is already looking at all recommendations made in the independent report “Developing Scotland’s Economy: Increasing The Role Of Inclusive And Democratic Business Models”. I therefore see no need for the amendment, because the work of that group can feed into the first community wealth building statement.
In response to Richard Leonard’s earlier comments about the group not meeting, I understand that the group met last year. The group falls under the business minister’s portfolio and is chaired by senior officials. My officials are very happy to engage with Mr Leonard to advise him about the group’s status.
On amendment 123, the matter of using community share and bond models involves a level of detail that is best suited to the guidance. The bill intends to provide a framework for the preparation of a statement and action plans, not to prescribe consideration of specific financial mechanisms.
I totally take that point, but, even if the minister does not support that change to the legislation, would he commit to looking at the economic models, so that they are not left behind and missed out?
I am happy to look at them and consider them.
The Government supports amendment 34, which is in a similar vein to amendment 5, in Murdo Fraser’s name, except that Lorna Slater’s amendment focuses on consulting
“local authorities, community organisations, and social enterprises.”
Regarding amendment 35, it is critical that businesses are consulted on any draft community wealth building statement. Any responsible Government would talk to businesses in that context. The bill already states:
“Ministers must … consult with such persons as they consider appropriate.”
I am also concerned that the way that the amendment is worded might require ministers to consult each and every business that is potentially affected, which would not be practical. However, I am happy to discuss the matter with Lorna Slater before stage 3, perhaps building on the content of amendment 34 to arrive at a more comprehensive and workable list of key consultees.
Amendment 52 is in a similar vein. Again, a specific obligation to consult Co-operative Development Scotland when preparing the community wealth building statement is not required, because it forms part of Scottish Enterprise, which, along with many other bodies and partners, will be consulted on a draft statement. A future Administration should be allowed to choose how to conduct an inclusive consultation exercise. However, as I said, I am happy to discuss the matter with colleagues before stage 3.
The Government does not support amendment 53. Moving from a five-year cycle of revision of the statement to a one-year cycle does not allow enough time for progress to be monitored and for new measures to be formulated. It would trap the Government in a perpetual cycle of continually revising the statement. Should five years prove too long, ministers are obliged to keep the statement under review and they can revise it at any point.
I urge members not to move the amendments in this group. If they do, I urge members not to support them, with the exception of amendments 23 and 34.
I ask Paul Sweeney to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 122.
I am open to discussing these matters with the minister further, but I do not think that it is entirely onerous for the Government to have to cross-reference how a report that it commissioned interfaces with the bill. It is a relatively minor piece of work, but it demonstrates confidence that there is coherence in the Government’s approach, so there are no real issues with amendment 122.
Regarding amendment 123, given the context of the slow decline of Co-operative Development Scotland and the enterprise agencies, which has been reported, it is really important that it is explicitly put in the bill that community benefit societies and co-operatives should be developed in a clear, practical way, including through the issuing of equity and share capital to allow them to fundraise for community ownership, if necessary. It is a really useful exercise, and the Government should think about how it mandates Co-operative Development Scotland, which has been on a downward trajectory in the last few years, and how it rejuvenates the organisation within Scottish Enterprise. It is a useful test to see where the Government will take CDS in the future. With that in mind, I am minded to press amendment 122 and to move amendment 123 at this stage.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 123 disagreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[Lorna Slater].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Please raise your hands if there are any amendments—sorry, abstentions. I think that I will have to write that at the top of my page.
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
I intend to carry on until we reach the next grouping and then take a short suspension, to provide a bit of relief and perhaps help me with my diction.
Amendment 52 moved—[Richard Leonard].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 52 disagreed to.
Amendment 34 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
11:55
Meeting suspended.
12:05
On resuming—
After section 1
We move to group 5. Amendment 6, in the name of Lorna Slater, is grouped with amendments 124 and 102.
One of my concerns is that the community wealth building statement should not become something that the Scottish Government can just publish and ignore, so amendment 6 seeks to compel ministers to take action in line with their statement. The form of words is based on that in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, so I believe that the approach is sound.
I would like to understand from the minister what his preferred approach is to ensure that the statement is more than just a bit of paper on the shelf, and, if he does not prefer my proposed approach, how it will connect with policy and other legislation in an integrated way.
Paul Sweeney’s amendments in this group highlight the same point, so the Government will need to address it—if not at stage 2, then at stage 3.
I move amendment 6.
As Lorna Slater said, the amendments in this group have a similar purpose. Amendment 124 would remove the possibility that the community wealth building statement might contain actions that are not acted on, and would instead require the Scottish ministers to implement the measures in the statement. It is key that action, and not just the duplication of paperwork, is the ultimate outcome of the bill.
Amendment 102 seeks to ensure that the community wealth building action plans are binding, enabling meaningful and progressive action towards outcomes. If the phrase
“so far as reasonably practicable”
is kept in the bill, relevant public bodies will have an enormous loophole to avoid following through on action plans. The ability of the community wealth building partners to deliver the action plan should be assessed and dealt with during a review or monitoring, rather than providing a general loophole in the bill. I hope that that loophole can be closed at this stage.
No other member has indicated that they wish to speak, so I invite the minister to respond on behalf of the Government.
The Government position is not to support any of the amendments in this group. Amendment 6, in the name of Lorna Slater, would impose a legal obligation on the Scottish Government to consider the contents and relevance of its published community wealth building statement when making any other Government policy, including proposals for legislation. Seeking a productive synergy between linked Government policy should be a staple for any Administration, and I do not think that we need an obligation to undertake such activity to be set out in primary legislation. We should also bear in mind the principle of parliamentary accountability, wherein the reporting requirement lies.
Amendment 124, from Paul Sweeney, would impose a legal obligation on ministers to implement their community wealth building statement. The statement is a list of measures that the Scottish ministers are taking or intending to take, so I see no necessity to compel the Scottish ministers to be legally obliged to implement the measures. There will also, rightly, be scrutiny by Parliament through the mechanisms of laying the statement and the reports on progress before it.
Amendment 102 from Paul Sweeney would amend section 8 of the bill to remove the words
“so far as reasonably practicable”
from the provision. The revised provision would state:
“community wealth building partners must implement the measures set out”
in their action plan. That would obligate local authorities and the relevant public bodies to implement actions as set out in the plan, even if they prove to be impractical or impossible to deliver for any reason. My concern is that that would reduce flexibility and might actually inhibit the ambition of community wealth building partnerships.
I ask Lorna Slater to wind up and to press or withdraw her amendment.
I have no further remarks, convener. I press amendment 6.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Abstentions
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Section 2—Publication and laying of statement
Amendment 7, in the name of Lorna Slater, is grouped with amendments 8 to 12 and 19.
Too often, when public bodies publish data, they do so in a format that does not lend itself to analysis, such as scanned hard copies or PDFs. These amendments seek to ensure that all data must be published in a suitable format for analysis.
There are two different types of amendments in the group. One explicitly calls for a standardised machine-readable format and the other gives the Scottish ministers the option to specify by regulation the format of data that is to be published. Those are two slightly different approaches but both are intended to ensure that any data that is produced can be analysed in a straightforward way.
Although their intention of promoting accessibility is understandable, the amendments requiring standardised machine-readable formats for the various statements and reports are not necessary. The Scottish ministers and local authorities are already required to make the documents and websites accessible via other legislation. It is not just a question of the amendments being unnecessary—there is a further dimension in that including them would risk the primary legislation becoming dated. Technology evolves at such a pace that I would be concerned that multiple future amendments would be required for the legislation to keep pace. We should—
Will the minister give way?
Yes.
Amendment 8 says:
“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations specify further details about the format”.
The related amendments in the group say something similar. Therefore, I am not seeking for the bill to specify what the format should be. I would be allowing ministers to adjust that as we go forward. Is that not acceptable?
I take the point, but I think that my earlier point stands. That requirement is already laid down in other legislation, which means that there is no need for it in the bill and, on the principle of not adding extra provisions to the bill that are covered elsewhere, I still urge members to vote against the amendments.
I would be happy to instruct my officials to include the topic of accessibility and format standardisation in the guidance development discussions, and to include representations from the relevant bodies and other organisations, such as COSLA, public bodies and the third and business sectors.
I invite Lorna Slater to wind up and indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 7.
I have no further remarks, convener, but I will withdraw amendment 7.
Amendment 7, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 8 moved—[Lorna Slater].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
After section 2
Amendment 124 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 124 disagreed to.
12:15
Section 3—Review and revision of statement
Amendment 53 moved—[Richard Leonard].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 56 disagreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5—Community wealth building action plan
Amendment 84, in the name of Ivan McKee, is grouped with amendments 125, 128, 18, 61, 91, 129, 38, 92, 93, 65, and 100.
I encourage members to support all four amendments in my name in the group, as well as amendment 128, in the name of Lorna Slater. Amendment 84 is a small adjustment to make it clear that local authorities and their relevant partners must develop a community wealth building action plan together, as opposed to producing one each. The latter unintended interpretation was highlighted during stage 1.
Amendments 92 and 93 are linked. Amendment 92 seeks to ensure that there is inclusive development of local action plans by adding specific requirements to consult representatives of the community, businesses and the third sector. Amendment 93 ensures that local authorities are transparent about how they consult during the preparation period and how they factor in views that have been received in framing the final document.
Amendment 100, in my name, adjusts the bill to ensure that there is clarity on local authorities’ role in publishing a revised action plan. Section 5(2) already makes it clear that the responsibility for that falls to the local authority. However, the wording of section 7(3) also needs to be tightened to make that clear. The Government’s position is to resist the rest of the amendments in the group, except amendment 128. Although existing statutory provisions set out how common good assets can be used, I do not think that introducing additional measures via the bill would impact negatively on existing provisions. Therefore, the Government’s position is to support amendment 128.
On amendment 18, I agree with the importance of consulting with businesses on community wealth building action plans, but I invite the member to speak to me about that prior to stage 3. I am concerned that obliging local authorities to consult all businesses that are operating in the relevant local area goes too far and represents a significant task. As I say, I would be happy to discuss that further and I hope to find a more workable solution for consulting businesses. In addition, it is worth highlighting amendment 92, in my name, which would require persons who are considered representatives of businesses, amongst other things, to be consulted. Should Murdo Fraser find my amendment satisfactory, perhaps he could consider withdrawing his amendment 18.
I turn to amendments 125 and 129 in Paul Sweeney’s name. The Government cannot support amendment 125, as it places too high a focus on one potential collaborative partner, namely credit unions, for community wealth building partnerships. Credit unions are important bodies in the context of community wealth building, but not to the extent that they should be isolated and elevated above others in the way that amendment 125 proposes. Amendment 129, which proposes a specific obligation on local authorities to consult credit unions, cannot be supported by the Government on the same grounds.
Richard Leonard’s amendment 61 is similar to amendment 125 in its selective focus, this time on Co-operative Development Scotland, which is part of Scottish Enterprise, the public body that will be obliged to be part of the development of every community wealth building action plan. Therefore, there is no requirement for amendment 61. I urge the member to withdraw it.
Sarah Boyack’s amendment 91 reminds me of the huge importance of working with communities to maximise the impact of community wealth building as a policy and a model of local economic development. However, an obligation to consult any community bodies operating in a relevant area when preparing an action plan—in other words, all of them—seems quite onerous in practice. I respectfully ask the member to withdraw the amendment and consider supporting my amendment 92 instead, which would require there to be consultation with such persons that the community wealth building partnership considers as representatives of the interests of the community.
I encourage Lorna Slater to withdraw amendment 38, which adds additional entities that must be consulted by local authorities when preparing an action plan, and support amendment 92. The combination of the proposed consultation requirements, as amended by my proposed amendments, and statutory guidance can address the issue of adequate consultation.
Finally, on Richard Leonard’s amendment 65, the Government cannot support imposing a requirement to update action plans every year. In my view, that is too frequent. Further, that would need to be discussed with COSLA and others prior to committing community wealth building partners to an annual timescale for revising action plans.
Amendments 125 and 129 serve the same purpose and are intentionally designed to reinforce the role of credit unions as part of community wealth building in Scotland. The minister was rather dismissive of their role and their unique position in the Scottish economy. Scotland has an extremely concentrated banking system, with the clearing banks dominating that system.
Credit unions in Scotland demonstrate remarkable reach compared with those in other parts of the UK. They serve almost half a million members in Scotland with £0.75 billion in loans. Given that credit unions penetrate 9 per cent of the population, there is a huge opportunity to build on those unique assets in Scotland. To dismiss or not recognise that exceptional situation is rather unfair, so I hope that the minister will reconsider his position and perhaps look at the matter again, if he is not minded to support my amendments at this stage.
Amendment 128 seeks to ensure that local authorities consider the use and disposal of common good land and assets when developing their action plans. As other members, including Rhoda Grant, have highlighted, common good land and assets will be significant in relation to the development of those plans.
I would like members to particularly consider amendment 38, the purpose of which is to ensure that local democratic organisations such as community councils and development trusts, organisations that are already working on community wealth building in the area and key private companies such as major local employers are included. A key concern that was flagged by stakeholders in the committee’s stage 1 evidence sessions is that existing organisations, such as community development trusts, that are already working on community wealth building and that have substantial local knowledge and experience can be completely excluded from the development of action plans. The development trusts that we heard from specifically asked that they be included, and it seems counterproductive to ignore the experience and expertise that they can bring to the process.
It also seems sensible to include private firms that are substantial local employers or landowners. I think that Murdo Fraser’s amendment 18 attempts to do something similar.
I think that Sarah Boyack, through amendment 91, is looking to do something similar to what I am trying to do through amendment 38, but I think that her wording is too broad. My amendment describes democratic community groups, which include community councils, so it is more specific and representative.
I do not disagree with the intention of Paul Sweeney’s amendments 125 and 129, but they would be in slightly odd places in the bill, so the matter could perhaps be reconsidered at stage 3.
I think that the annual reporting requirements that are set out in amendment 65 would be too onerous, so I will not support that amendment.
Amendment 18 would require those who prepare community wealth building plans to consult businesses that operate in the area, particularly those that would likely be impacted by any targets, which we will discuss in a later group of amendments.
I listened with interest to what the minister said about the matter, and I have looked at the wording of his amendment 92, which I will support. Amendment 92 talks about the need for consultation with persons who are considered to be
“representative of the interests of … businesses”,
which is a slightly different point from the one that I am making in amendment 18.
I will be happy to support amendment 92 and will not move amendment 18, but I would be interested in having discussions with the minister prior to stage 3 to see whether we could agree on some other wording.
Amendment 61 is, again, an attempt to include Co-operative Development Scotland in the preparation of community wealth building action plans at a local level. I am concerned that its history, as well as its present and future, appears to have been written off. I think that it is an important part of the tools of economic development in Scotland. I know that it sits inside Scottish Enterprise, so I understand the minister’s argument that Scottish Enterprise will be consulted, ergo Co-operative Development Scotland will be consulted, but I am looking for something a little bit firmer than that to guarantee that that will be a dimension of the input from Scottish Enterprise and the enterprise network generally.
Amendment 65 is about having the local plan revised annually. Frankly, if the committee is not prepared to support the Scottish Government coming back to Parliament more than once every five years, it would be rather unfair to impose an annual regime on local government. I intend not to move amendment 65.
12:30
My amendment 91 simply seeks to strengthen the consultation requirements around the preparation of a community wealth building action plan. As drafted, the bill sets out a list of bodies that a local authority must consult, but my amendment would add a clear requirement to include any community bodies operating in the area covered by the plan, so that there would be no risk of any community groups being ignored.
That is really important, because community wealth building is meant to be rooted in local priorities and experience. Community bodies are often the organisations with the closest understanding of local needs, assets and opportunities. Ensuring that they are explicitly included in the consultation process would help to make the action plan more grounded, more representative and, ultimately, more effective.
The other amendments in the group—they cover transparency, inclusiveness, joint working with local authorities, credit unions, development trusts and businesses—are all important.
I will comment on Richard Leonard’s remarks on Co-operative Development Scotland. It is really important that it remains on our profile and is not just subsumed by Scottish Enterprise. If we are going to make community co-operatives work, they must be higher up the agenda.
I invite the minister to wind up.
I have a few brief comments. I hear Paul Sweeney’s points about credit unions. My previous comments were not intended to downplay the critical importance of credit unions; they were more a reflection on how other types of bodies could or should be considered in the same vein when we articulate the legislation. Having said that, I am happy to meet Paul Sweeney and engage on that point in advance of stage 3, to talk through the Government’s position.
I thank Murdo Fraser for agreeing not to move his amendment 18, and look forward to engaging with him on that specific point on businesses.
On Sarah Boyack’s point about community bodies, there are real concerns about how to define a community body and how to find out how many there are in any given area—there could be many hundreds of them. What would happen if you miss one? I get the intent behind her amendment, but it is an impractical approach to address the issue.
I press amendment 84.
The question is, that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Amendment 125 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 125 disagreed to.
Amendment 11 not moved.
Amendment 12 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 58 moved—[Richard Leonard].
There will be a division.
For
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 59 disagreed to.
Given the progress that we have made, I will draw to a close this morning’s stage 2 proceedings of the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill. We will resume our proceedings next week.
12:36
Meeting continued in private until 12:57.
Air ais
Draft Climate Change Plan