Official Report 633KB pdf
09:53
Agenda item 4 is continuation of our consideration of the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I am pleased that the Minister for Public Finance is here to participate in our work today and note that he is supported by his officials, who are not permitted to speak in the debate. I remind members that although we aim to get to the end of our stage 2 consideration this morning, if we are unable to do so, we will meet again at 5.30 this evening to dispose of the remaining amendments.
I will not repeat what I stated when we commenced our stage 2 consideration of the bill about how we deal with the process, but I remind members that we will be following the marshalled list and that they should have that in front of them, along with the bill as introduced and the groupings of amendments, which shows the order in which amendments will be debated.
Section 5—Community wealth building action plan
Amendment 85, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is grouped with amendments 118, 60 and 25.
The purpose of amendment 85 and its associated amendment 118 is to ensure that a community wealth building action plan must include
“an assessment of economic leakage from the local area to which the plan relates, and … the measures the community wealth building partnership is taking, or intends to take, to address this”.
Amendment 85 seeks to minimise the leakage of wealth from local areas and to ensure that relevant public bodies take meaningful action to secure and grow local development and the circulation, or recirculation, of wealth within that geography. When public finances are pressured, as they often are, the case for community wealth building becomes even stronger, as we must try to prevent that sort of leakage from local economies and ensure that public expenditure results in wealth circulating and remaining in circulation in the local area as much as possible. An example could be the economic extraction that takes place as a result of public subsidies feeding unsustainable land price increases—investor land ownership in Scotland is a case in point.
The Government often cites foreign direction investment in terms of purely the projects, without any further granular analysis of those projects. If not properly scrutinised, such projects might result in greater flows of profit extraction from the Scottish economy in the years to come. Indeed, that overreliance on foreign capital has led to the dilution of Scottish democracy, and it could do so again. Investors could exert leverage by threatening to move investments elsewhere if demands are not met on tax breaks or the erosion of workers’ rights or environmental standards, for example, or in relation to other legislation that might reduce rates of profit extraction. My proposed provision would be a good preventative measure in that regard.
Although the most recent gross national income figures to be published are welcome, there was a significant gap between 2017 and 2023, as well as a two-year time lag in relation to the latest data. Those are significant issues for data analysis and understanding of the gap between gross national income and gross domestic product. The Scottish Government should therefore also commit to publishing GNI figures more readily, and perhaps the proposed more granular local data picture could assist with that.
If properly resourced and collaboratively delivered, community wealth building action plans would represent a significant opportunity for local authorities in particular to help the national effort to secure and grow local economic development and a true circular economy.
I move amendment 85.
I call Richard Leonard to speak to amendment 60 and other amendments in the group.
Thank you very much, convener, and thanks for the opportunity to move my amendment.
Amendment 60 is an attempt to change the status of the measures that are set out in the community wealth building action plans, from measures that “may” be covered to measures that “must” be covered. I think that it is important that the action plans must include public procurement, must include land ownership diversification, must include promoting equality, employment opportunities and so on, and must include promoting employee-owned businesses.
My approach reflects two of the recommendations that the committee made in its stage 1 report. The first one, in paragraph 54 on page 10 of the report, talks about the need for
“more consistent adoption of community wealth building”.
Having musts rather than mays points us towards that more consistent adoption.
I am also reflecting paragraph 69, on page 13 of the report. In the context of the statement that needs to be prepared by the minister, I think that that spirit transfers across to community wealth building action plans, where the committee recommends that
“the Bill should clearly articulate what this statement will include, rather than what it ‘may’ include.”
Amendment 60 is an attempt to introduce that approach to action plans. It is also an amendment that is supported by Co-operatives UK.
I call Lorna Slater to speak to amendment 25 and other amendments in the group.
Thank you, convener. Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that community wealth building action plans are rooted in community priorities. Community wealth building action plans should be aligned with community action plans, local place plans and local development plans. That seems a basic step to ensure coherence. If the minister is unable to support the amendment, I would like to hear from him whether he will commit to ensuring that the approach is present in guidance.
On the other amendments in the group, Paul Sweeney and I have similar intentions but different approaches, so I will not support amendments 85 and 118. I am happy to support Richard Leonard’s proposal to change “may” to “must” in amendment 60.
The Government’s position on the four amendments in the group is that they cannot be supported.
Amendment 85 seeks to create an additional requirement for community wealth building partnerships to assess
“economic leakage from the local area”
and include measures in the action plan to address that. Amendment 118 is consequential to amendment 85 and would provide that the measures listed in section 5(5) may be used to address economic leakage. If Richard Leonard’s amendment 60 is agreed to, the measures would have to be used for that purpose.
10:00
Under section 5(4) of the bill, community wealth building action plans
“must set out the measures”
that the partnership
“is taking, or intends to take, to facilitate and support the generation, circulation and retention of wealth in the local economy.”
It would seem to me that retention of wealth in the local economy and the prevention of economic leakage are two sides of the same coin.
Further, although everyone wants to see our local businesses grow and access opportunities for growth from public procurement, many goods and services will need to be purchased in the wider region or beyond. As such, I think that amendment 85 is not necessary. The issue could be explored further in dialogue as we develop the statutory guidance.
Richard Leonard’s amendment 60 seeks to amend section 5(5) to change the wording as regards the listed measures from “may” to “must”. That would create a legal obligation for community wealth building partnerships to include those measures in their plans rather than afford them discretion to include and prioritise actions and measures that are most relevant to their local areas.
Further, because section 8 requires partnerships to
“implement the measures set out in the plan”
so far as that is reasonably practical, amendment 60 would have the indirect effect of making the adoption and implementation of the listed measures effectively mandatory, unless there were practical reasons why they could not be implemented. Although the Government’s position is to support a similar proposition linked to the community wealth building statement by Scottish ministers—amendment 21—in my view, amendment 60 places too much restriction and prescription on community wealth building partnerships in preparing their action plans where local flexibility is essential. We therefore cannot support amendment 60.
We cannot support amendment 25, in Lorna Slater’s name, for similar reasons. It would require action plans to be aligned with other listed plans, those being community action plans, local place plans and local development plans. It should be left to those in the lead in local areas to ensure that plans with relevance to one another are aligned, rather than being obstructed through primary legislation. I do not want to tie the hands of partnerships as regards what they can and cannot do in their action plans. Issues of linkage and synergy can more appropriately be explored through development of guidance, and I am happy to give the undertaking that Lorna Slater sought with regard to discussing how that can be reflected in the statutory guidance.
I ask Paul Sweeney to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 85.
I am disappointed by the minister’s response to my amendments. I do not think that they are particularly onerous or difficult. I assume that the minister agrees in principle with the idea of gathering relevant data to understand the extent of wealth circulation in a local economy, whether it is termed as leakage or retention. It is a semantic point, really.
The amendments were developed in conjunction with Community Land Scotland, and I think that they are laudable and merit some further consideration. A good example, from the minister’s own constituency, would be Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries, which is part of City Building. It has referred to the idea of the Glasgow pound, which involves local procurement chains recirculating wealth and the consequent multiplier effects on local economic development.
I think that having greater visibility at a micro level is helpful in developing policy. There is a significant gap in data gathering—whether it is to allow analysis of foreign direct investment projects and how they add value to the Scottish economy, or on generation of local supply chain content—and that would be useful data for us to have to drive public policy. Placing such measures in the bill is certainly more helpful than merely having them in statutory guidance.
I would be reassured if the minister would at least engage at the next stage of the bill to try to find a way forward so that that activity can take place as a function of the legislation, because I think that that would be in the public interest. I press amendment 85.
The question is, that amendment 85 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 85 disagreed to.
I call Paul Sweeney to move or not move amendment 118.
I move amendment 118. Actually, I will not move it, because it is pointless in the context.
Can I just confirm that amendment 118 is not moved?
Yes—sorry.
Amendment 118 not moved.
Amendment 60 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
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 60 disagreed to.
Amendment 36 moved—[Lorna Slater]—and agreed to.
Amendment 44 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 44 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 44 disagreed to.
Amendment 126 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 126 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 126 disagreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 13 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 13 disagreed to.
Amendment 14 not moved.
Amendment 15 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 15 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 15 agreed to.
Amendment 37 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 37 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 37 disagreed to.
Amendment 86 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
The question is, that amendment 86 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 86 agreed to.
Amendment 87 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.
Amendment 88 moved—[Ivan McKee].
The question is, that amendment 88 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 88 agreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 16 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 16 agreed to.
Amendment 24 not moved.
Amendment 45 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 45 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 45 disagreed to.
Amendment 89 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 89 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 89 disagreed to.
Amendment 90 moved—[Sarah Boyack].
The question is, that amendment 90 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 90 disagreed to.
10:15
Amendment 127 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 127 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 127 disagreed to.
Give me one moment; I need to switch lists. I am making sure that I am reading from the right script, as I have been joking with the clerks that I do not want any Ron Burgundy moments during these proceedings.
Amendment 17, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is grouped with amendments 27, 101, 20, 26, 26A to 26E, 39, 39A, 57, 139, 28, 29, 29A, 29B, 67, 68, 108, 110 to 112 and 141 to 143.
Amendments 17 and 20 in the group are in my name. Amendment 17 deals with the question of targets in community wealth building plans for public procurement spend with local economic operators. The issue was raised with the committee by a number of witnesses who gave evidence at stage 1—most notably, the Federation of Small Businesses, which is particularly keen that community wealth building is used a means of supporting the local business community.
In line with my general approach to the bill, which I do not want to be cluttered with lots of provisions, amendment 17 is intended to be relatively light in touch. It does not specify what the target should be. It would be for the local organisation that prepares the plan—for example, the local authority—to set the target. That target might indeed be zero—which would not, of course, be helpful—but the intention is to put something in the bill to require the setting of a target, therefore encouraging more public money to be spent on supporting local communities.
Convener, I notice that your amendment 27 is similar in approach. I prefer my approach because it is lighter in touch than yours, which is overly prescriptive. We are in the same general territory but amendment 17 is neater and cleaner and imposes fewer obligations on the organisations that prepare community wealth building plans. I therefore commend amendment 17 to colleagues as it allows maximum local flexibility, as I have outlined.
Amendment 20 is consequential in essence and seeks to require reporting on the matter. Every community wealth building partnership would, at the end of every financial year, have to prepare a report setting out the percentage of total spend on public procurement contracts with local economic operators, and publish that, so that it was transparent.
I move amendment 17.
I will speak to amendment 27 and the other amendments that I have lodged in the group. As Murdo Fraser has pointed out, amendment 27 is in a similar ball park to his amendment 17. As we discussed at stage 1, the bill does little more than require the compilation of plans in consultation with others. There was a concern that, without any additional steps or amendments, all that was consequent would not be possible and that, to make sure of progress, we needed to look at steps that could be brought in. There was an interesting interaction between the minister and some members of the committee during our stage 1 evidence taking and in the stage 1 debate about the tension that exists between the bill, and the importance of ensuring that community wealth building is approached from the bottom up and does not involve centrally imposed targets.
My amendments seek to set out a framework so that there is at least a consistent methodology in measuring the same or similar things across different community wealth building plans. Those plans could then choose their targets. Essentially, there would be a consistent measurement framework, but local target setting would be maintained nonetheless.
That is the balance that my amendment 27 seeks to strike. If it is—to use Murdo Fraser’s words—“overly prescriptive”, that is purely because I think that it is important that there is a consistent set of measures. I was seeking to specify a set of areas that we would want to be monitored consistently wherever community wealth building approaches are developed.
My other amendments in the group are consequential to amendment 27. Amendment 28 would enable parliamentary scrutiny of those measures to be undertaken, and amendment 29 would require ministers to publish some sort of report. It represents an attempt to consolidate the process and to provide some sort of analysis.
I suspect that the minister might suggest that one year is too short a reporting period. I am pretty relaxed about that. Likewise, I am open to considering what matters should be measured. I would not want my amendments to be dismissed for reasons to do with the length of the reporting period or what should be measured. I think that it would be useful to discuss the general principle of having a broad measurement framework within which the authors of community wealth building plans could set their own targets. That would be followed by a consolidated survey to look at how those community wealth building plans were progressing.
That is the central thrust of my amendments, which is very much in line with the approach that Murdo Fraser is proposing and, more broadly, with some of the discussion that has taken place in the committee and beyond. With that, I will close my comments on my amendments.
I invite the minister to speak to amendment 101 and other amendments in the group.
Amendment 101, in my name, seeks to bring reporting on community wealth building action plans into line with similar obligations that are attached to the community wealth building statements that the Scottish ministers will provide. Amendment 101 was influenced by the stage 1 report.
I am of the view that reporting on progress in community wealth building action plans is very important, but I do not want to stipulate too high a degree of complexity in the bill. It is more important that we give local authorities and other community wealth building partners the flexibility and autonomy to set meaningful local targets that they can use reliable data to measure progress on. The dialogue on producing community wealth building guidance with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others is a helpful place to do that.
In general, I favour a streamlined and enabling approach to monitoring progress on community wealth building measures, and I ask members to support amendment 101.
Turning to the other amendments in the group, I know that issues associated with monitoring and target setting have been at the forefront of members’ thinking on the bill, and I welcome the contributions from the convener and Murdo Fraser in that regard. The Government’s position is not to support any of the other amendments in the group. I will explain why that is the case separately, but I thank the convener, Murdo Fraser, Richard Leonard and Lorna Slater for the amount of time and thought that they have given to framing some of the amendments in the group. I repeat my offer to discuss the issues around monitoring and target setting prior to stage 3.
I will briefly set out some thoughts on a number of the amendments. A key running theme is the interaction with current procurement policy and law. Amendments 20, 27, 39 and 39A would impose additional or annual reporting requirements, and the requirement for an additional report to be laid before Parliament would be disproportionate. Authorities already publish annual procurement reports under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. Adding further statutory reports would risk duplication and diverting resources away from delivery. Ministers have the power to specify by order the matters that must be contained in annual procurement reports, and I would be happy to give a commitment to engage with stakeholders on whether it would be appropriate to use that power to address some of the matters that members have raised.
Amendments 17, 26, 26E and 57 collectively seek to impose statutory targets or reporting requirements on procurement activity, including awards to local businesses, co-operatives and alternative ownership models, and on measuring spend within or outside local authority areas. Although I understand the intent, imposing statutory targets risks being bureaucratic. Targets are difficult to establish, maintain and monitor, and could undermine flexibility for local authorities and partnerships.
I reiterate my commitment to work with members to find a way that we can perhaps—
I am grateful for that constructive insight. It recognises that there is a balance to be struck. Would the minister agree to meet the members who have amendments in this group to discuss potential ways forward? I think that we all want to ensure that there is progress in community wealth building.
I am very happy to do that, convener. I can meet you, Murdo Fraser and others who are interested in the targets and in seeking to lodge amendments at stage 3 that will deliver what we all want to have, while keeping as much flexibility as possible, in line with the context that I have outlined.
The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 already provides a strong foundation. It requires authorities to consider how procurement can improve economic, social and environmental wellbeing and to facilitate the involvement of SMEs, third sector bodies and supported businesses, while treating all operators equally. Scotland already performs strongly in that respect. As I have indicated previously, the latest data shows that fully 47 per cent of Scotland’s public sector procurement spend is with SMEs, which is far in excess of the proportion across the rest of the UK and, indeed, more widely across Europe.
Amendments 28, 29, 29A, 29B, 68, 108, 110, 112 and 142 relate to reviews and broader reforms of contributory policy areas. Amendment 29 would require the Scottish ministers to review the contribution of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 and the Community Empowerment Act (Scotland) Act 2015 within one year of the bill receiving royal assent. That is unnecessary. We have recently consulted on the scope for increasing contract thresholds in the 2014 act and lowering thresholds for community benefit requirements. That consultation closed on 8 January, and responses are being analysed.
I am sorry—I realise that I did not effectively cover all of amendment 29 in my comments. A point that has been discussed widely, both when we were taking evidence and more broadly, is that, although the 2015 act has been a step forward and is a critical tool for developing community wealth building, many community groups have been frustrated with the level of candour with which public authorities sometimes bring forward information. An example in my constituency is when a site fell under not one but two titles, and that was the reason given for why the community group’s bid was rejected. If we are going to advance this, we have to recognise that there will be parts of the 2015 act and of other pieces of legislation that enable communities to take on ownership that could be improved.
I recognise your point that this is part of on-going work. However, I wonder whether you might take this opportunity to put on the record an acknowledgement of some of the hurdles and, maybe, unintended consequences that result from those bits of legislation and which should be looked at and remedied by an incoming Government after the election.
I am certainly happy to look at that. As I said, there is a process in place to keep those requirements under review. I take the point that the convener makes.
Moving from procurement to tax matters, amendment 67 seeks a review of business tax reliefs to support community wealth building. Matters relating to devolved tax should, of course, be taken forward in tax-specific legislation, with consultation, to avoid unintended consequences
The Scottish Government reviews non-domestic rates policies regularly and is currently undertaking a review of land and buildings transaction tax. We will work with businesses to examine reliefs ahead of the next revaluation in 2029. I understand the intent behind the member’s amendments and am happy to engage with him on this area in advance of stage 3.
10:30
On community empowerment, although accountability is vital, if we prescribe rigid mechanisms such as citizens panels or audits, we risk turning engagement into a tick-box exercise. Guidance, and community wealth building partnerships working, will more effectively achieve meaningful involvement. The Scottish Government has considered feedback from the 2023 community wealth building consultation and the 2019 Scottish Land Commission report, and our focus remains on supporting local authorities to meet statutory duties under part 8 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and associated guidance. We will keep those requirements under review.
For completeness, the Government will resist amendments 17, 28, 68, 108, 110 to 112, 139, and 141 to 143. As I have set out, that is for reasons of proportionality, duplication or practicality.
My amendment 26 compels the Scottish Government to set targets. The text of the amendment is based on the approach used in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, in that it does not put targets in the bill but ensures that targets will be set. It was a significant concern of the committee that the bill did not have targets, and several members have suggested approaches to resolve that. I heard the minister say that he is not keen on that, but the committee clearly is. The Government may be in for a defeat over Murdo Fraser and Daniel Johnson’s amendments on targets, which means that the minister will have to come back at stage 3 if he does not like what gets passed today.
Amendment 26 is my suggested approach, because it is the tried and tested one from the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. However, I would like the Government to give serious consideration to including some mechanism for targets in the bill. As I say, an amendment might be passed today, but if the Government does not like it, it could propose something that it does like at stage 3.
We all agree that reporting and monitoring are needed in this bill. Now that the Government has lodged amendment 101, I will not move my amendments 39 or 39A. However, I will carefully review the Government’s amendments before stage 3 to ensure that the reporting is adequately covered.
Amendments 29A, 29B and 110 to 112 are my attempts to piggyback on Daniel Johnson’s excellent approach of requiring the Scottish Government to review specific legislation with respect to community wealth building and, in particular, procurement. A review does not require primary legislation to take place, but the Scottish Government needs to be willing to commit to such a comprehensive review so that the Scottish Parliament can remove legislative barriers to community wealth building, particularly around procurement. I would like to hear from the Government how it intends to undertake that.
I will speak to amendments 57, 67 and 68. I have been a member of this Parliament long enough to know that, when we set targets, they are often observed in the breach rather than in the observance, whether it is in the national health service or child poverty. Sometimes, targets are dropped altogether—look at emissions targets and climate change—but they nonetheless provide a statement of intent.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have suggested that one of the targets that we should include—an appropriate target—would be to see a doubling of the size of the worker co-op employee ownership sector by 2030, which is entirely in line with the Government’s stated policy, going back to the programme for government 2021, which talked about a target of 500 employee-owned businesses registered in Scotland by 2030, up from around 200 in 2024. I think that it is a perfectly reasonable target to set. It is commensurate with the Government’s own stated position. It helps in our drive for data collection, which is widely understood to be important in the passing of this legislation. It is also consistent with the approach that is taken by Parliament with the national strategy for economic transformation. Amendment 57 is entirely in keeping with that approach.
My other two amendments in the group relate to reviewing legislation within the first year after royal assent to the bill has been granted. Amendment 67 calls for the Government to consider business tax reliefs, as well as the small business bonus. There are other non-domestic rates exemptions already on the statute book for properties, for example, that contribute towards net zero targets. There is a right-to-buy relief for crofting communities, for example, upon conversion. I am simply suggesting that we take those existing provisions and look at how they might be applied to encourage the growth of the employee ownership sector.
I also draw to the committee’s attention the McInroy review group report commissioned by the Scottish Government that came out in September 2024, which said in its recommendation number 17 that the UK and Scottish Governments should explore potential tax relief. Amendment 67 simply seeks to make sure that that recommendation is not lost or left behind.
Similarly, and finally, amendment 68 is a request to look at procurement rules. When Parliament passed legislation on public procurement in 2014 and 2015, seeking to transpose the 2014 European Union public procurement directive, there was some debate about whether there should be reserved contracts to certain sectors of the social economy. The minister and I have worked together on a business in Larbert—Haven Products—which is a supported business. We have managed to keep it afloat and tried to win public contracts for it.
Supported businesses are covered by the existing legislation. Although the EU directive provided for mutualistic and social enterprises to be an option for reserved contracts, that option was not exercised by the Parliament when the regulations were set in 2015. All that I am calling for in amendment 68 is for that decision to be reviewed. Let us see whether we cannot look at a reserved contract status for certain types of social enterprise, employee ownership, worker co-operatives. That would align with EU policy, but would also be the right thing to do. Again, amendment 68 is simply calling for the Government to review procurement rules in the context set out in the amendment within 12 months of royal assent.
I propose that amendments 139, 141—I am supporting Sarah Boyack’s amendment—142, and 143 form part of the bill. Amendment 139 would add a key local accountability check to the bill by requiring Scottish ministers to create lines of accountability between community wealth building partnerships and local residents. It suggests options, including citizens panels and community audits, and would be a vital part of making the bill one in which local communities have continued buy-in and connection to projects and partnerships. We have seen good examples of that in other areas, such as community planning partnerships, charrettes, local place plans at local authority level, and developing urban planning models. A similar model could be used here, and I commend the proposal to the committee.
I support whole-heartedly amendment 141, in the name of Sarah Boyack. It actively promotes co-operatives, much in the same spirit as that just expressed by my colleague Richard Leonard. It is important that we grow the size of the co-operative economy in Scotland because it is an obvious and excellent example of how to retain wealth within a community because of its inherent structure of member ownership and the dividend being shared locally. There are many examples in Scotland that can be developed further, and to weave that into the legislation explicitly is an obvious and good suggestion.
Amendment 142 aims to broaden the ambition of the bill by using it as a catalyst for wider change within government procurement. It requires the Scottish Government to issue a report following a review of procurement and whether the current rules meet the requirements of community wealth building, where the interface is often under tension with the need to procure on an international or open basis. In line with what my colleague Richard Leonard just said, are we being ambitious enough with exemptions for community-owned enterprises?
For example, we know from the Mondragon co-operative structure in Spain that there are established measures that are compliant with international procurement treaties and domestic procurement legislation. I would like to test further where we can make that work more effectively in Scotland. This is a good way of probing the opportunity. Amendment 142 is important, because it would turn the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill into something that will truly change behaviours in procurement by embedding the values of the bill across our supply chains. Community wealth is a journey. Driving those values into purchasing behaviours seems to be the natural next step.
Amendment 143 would require Scottish ministers to set out how community wealth building will be financed and funded. That would add accountability to the initiative, while also clarifying where the financial burdens and barriers to the initial set-up of community wealth building partnerships would be. Similar tensions exist in community asset transfers, for example, where it can be challenging for communities to acquire the initial capital, for example, given the rules on the time-constrained disposal of assets. It would be useful for clear opportunities to be expressed as to how communities can establish initial seed funding to build community wealth building approaches.
Several of us have suggested amendments in the group that are important as they seek to strengthen the legislation. My two amendments in the group, amendments 108 and 141, seek to strengthen the framework by embedding independent scrutiny and reinforcing the role of co-operatives in building fairer local economies.
Amendment 108 proposes to introduce a requirement for a regular independent review of community wealth building. I think that it is proportionate to pick up the points that the minister made earlier. An external assessment would be carried out every five years, both of the national community wealth building statement and of a representative sample of local action plans. It will be absolutely critical to learn from both. The review must publish its findings and recommendations. Ministers can then set out how they intend to respond or explain why they are not taking action. That would mean that we would review the effectiveness of the legislation every five years. During every parliamentary session, we would have a proper review, which would inform what ministers are doing, support local authorities and support different community wealth building companies. I think that those reviews will be very important.
I thank Paul Sweeney for his support of my amendment 141. It would require ministers to report regularly on the steps that they are taking to promote co-operatives and support co-operative development. It asks for clarity on what practical support and resources, including financial support, have been made available, and how effective those measures have been. It is not enough for us to say that co-operatives are a “nice to have”. We have quite a lot of them, but we should think about where there are opportunities for more and what lessons can be learned. As a member of the Co-operative Party, I have seen some fantastic local co-ops, but we need to think about how we can get more of them and how we can support people to set them up and make them work.
I am a member of the Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative, in my constituency, and I have seen the benefits of the investment as well as the benefits for the local council. We should be ensuring that co-ops are a core part of the community wealth building approach, as they provide models of ownership and control that keep wealth rooted locally. My amendment 141 would ensure that their promotion is not just incidental, but that it is properly monitored, reported on and taken seriously as part of delivering the bill’s aims.
I am trying to ensure that the bill’s aspirations work in practice. There are many good amendments in this group. I note that the minister has offered to discuss them with us before stage 3. I hope that my amendments will achieve cross-party support, because I think that they are proportionate and that they will help in the implementation and review of the bill.
No other members have indicated that they would like to speak. I invite Murdo Fraser to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 17.
There has been a very good discussion about the amendments in the group. I was encouraged by what the minister said. The minister, the committee and the convener were all in more or less the same place on public procurement, and on monitoring and evaluation, although there is more work to be done.
10:45
I have reflected on amendment 17, which is in my name, and amendment 27, which is in Sarah Boyack’s name, and I think that they could work together. I am very happy for us to have further discussions with the minister on that. However, I believe that it is always best to go into a negotiation with a strong hand of cards, and for that reason, if we can get the amendments in the bill at stage 2 that would perhaps lead to a more constructive discussion on the detail in advance of stage 3.
I therefore press amendment 17 and encourage committee members to support it. I will also support amendment 27 when we get to it.
We are agreed.
Members: No.
Oh, we are not agreed. Apologies. Not only do I need to sort out my diction, but I need to wash out my ears.
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 17 agreed to.
Amendment 128 moved—[Lorna Slater]—and agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
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)
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 91 disagreed to.
Amendment 129 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)
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 question is, that amendment 25 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 25 disagreed to.
Given that we now have only two groups of amendments left, and the next one will be on the specification of named bodies, we will suspend for 10 minutes.
10:51
Meeting suspended.
11:00
On resuming—
We move to the next group. Amendment 94, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 95, 62 to 64, 96 to 99, 130 to 138, 107, 109, 113, 114, 144 to 148, 115, 116, 149 to 152 and 106 to 108.
The bill divides public bodies into two categories—relevant public bodies and specified public bodies—and places different obligations on each category. That approach reflects the varying levels of influence that different organisations exert on local and regional economic development. It is considered the most proportionate way to ensure that the bodies with the most significant economic levers, such as employment, procurement and investment, play the greatest role in developing and implementing community wealth building actions.
I urge members to support the amendments in my name in the group, but the Government does not support any of the other amendments in it. I will set out the reasons on both counts.
Amendment 94 in my name relates to amendment 106 in group 11, which will place a requirement to consult the relevant and specified public bodies in relation to guidance, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Amendment 94 will ensure that the same meaning of “relevant public bodies” applies to the consultation duty.
Amendment 95 in my name is necessary to ensure that the various colleges that form part of the University of the Highlands and Islands are under a duty to participate in community wealth building partnerships. The issue of the specific governance arrangements with regard to UHI arose during stage 1.
Amendment 116 in my name will remove Scottish Forestry from the list of specified public bodies, bringing it into line with other executive agencies with regard to how the legislation relates to them. The activities of executive agencies and their contributions to community wealth building will be covered by the Scottish ministers’ statement.
Amendments 113 and 115 in my name are technical in nature and involve the substitution of “Scottish Canals”, where it appears in the schedule, with “British Waterways Board”, which is the correct legal name for Scottish Canals.
Amendment 114 will add the Crofting Commission to the list of specified bodies that must pay due regard to the guidance that is published by the Scottish ministers. Given the influence that the commission can exert on rural communities, I urge members to support that amendment.
Turning to the other amendments in the group, adding bodies such as Crown Estate Scotland, housing associations, community councils, ferry operators and universities to the group of relevant bodies would impose disproportionate duties, duplicate existing governance or conflict with reserved legislation. Many of those organisations already engage voluntarily or through existing frameworks and local partnerships, which is the most efficient and proportionate approach.
Although I understand the thinking behind amendments 147 and 149, in Paul Sweeney’s name, I do not think that the two regulatory bodies, whose influence on the organisations that they regulate is limited with regard to community wealth building specifically, need to be subject to any obligation that is set out in the bill with reference to the community wealth building guidance.
I urge members to support the amendments in the group in my name and to resist the others, which would introduce unnecessary complexity to the legislation or for specific organisations.
I move amendment 94.
Amendment 62 seeks to add Co-operative Development Scotland as a relevant body. It remains the co-operative development agency for Scotland, established in 2006, and is under the wing of Scottish Enterprise, which was the minister’s defence in arguing not to include it in amendments last week. However, we are talking about community wealth building, and co-operative development is absolutely central to that.
Last week, I mentioned that the staffing level at CDS, at Scottish Enterprise, has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk over the years. It is now down to a bare minimum of, I think, one and a half members of staff. I compared that with the level at the Wales co-operative development centre, Cwmpas, which has 80 staff working on co-operative development. I suggest that the Scottish Government needs to reflect on that, and I ask the committee to take that into account.
That is a really powerful point—that statistic is shocking. If not Co-operative Development Scotland, what other organisation will do that work? We have lots of advocacy organisations, but what about an actual Government organisation that is there to deliver?
Absolutely—had the bill had a wider scope, I would have introduced amendments that would have called for Co-operative Development Scotland itself to be established on a statutory footing. Back in the days when it was established, there was some discussion about whether it should be the subject of primary legislation. In order to get things moving more quickly, it was decided to set it up within Scottish Enterprise without legislating for it explicitly. So, there is some history to that.
Two other organisations need to be included in this section of the bill, one of which is the Scottish National Investment Bank. I return to the report from September 2024 on inclusive democratic business models, in which recommendation 11 was that the Government should grow
“the role of the Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB) to intentionally and specifically support”
inclusive democratic business models. I also note that this committee’s report after its own deliberations on the bill at stage 1 included, at paragraph 82, the finding:
“The Bill and its accompanying documents do not set out the criteria used to determine the relevant public bodies. Consequently, the Committee was unclear on how the Scottish Government’s list was developed”.
That view was also reflected in paragraph 89 of the committee’s stage 1 report, which recommended:
“The Committee asks the Scottish Government to consider the organisations identified as having been omitted from the list of relevant public bodies and to provide the rationale for their exclusion. The Committee is particularly interested in understanding the reasons for not including the Scottish National Investment Bank, given its prominent role in supporting economic development.”
How is Skills Development Scotland a relevant body, whereas the Scottish National Investment Bank is not?
My final amendment in this group, amendment 64, would add local government pension schemes to the legislation. For example, the Strathclyde pension fund is a defined contribution scheme worth £31.3 billion—the assets that it manages are to the value of £31.3 billion. Local government pension schemes across Scotland are valued at various levels; one valuation that I saw said that they are worth £60 billion, which is the equivalent of an entire year’s budget for the Scottish Government.
A glimpse at the possibilities that local government pension schemes could offer has been provided by Preston City Council, which is one of the pioneering community wealth building councils. It has pioneered local investment. I also reflect that, in Falkirk in 2015, the local government pension scheme made a significant investment in housing. That is an example of reinvesting in the local economy rather than simply investing in derivatives in the far east, as often happens.
It is an interesting conversation. In many respects, I share Mr Leonard’s views about the use of local government pension schemes; I am not quite so sure that that fits in with this bill. We should point out that, while Falkirk Council did invest in housing, it removed itself from that approach quite quickly—which, I think, was to its detriment.
I agree that the Government and the Parliament should look in more depth at how local government pension schemes are invested. I am not entirely sure that this is the place for that. However, I am willing to have a further conversation with Mr Leonard about those investments, because they are important and we are not getting the best out of them for communities in Scotland.
I am happy to take up that offer of a further discussion with Mr Stewart, who brings ministerial as well as constituency experience to the subject.
I think that it is appropriate to include local government pension schemes here, because community wealth building is about place. It is about having a local and regional focus and about keeping wealth that is raised locally for investment locally, which is something that local government pension schemes could do.
I have long held the view that pension funds are a huge engine for investment, but they are largely a sleeping giant—which I think should be awakened. I think that the bill provides us with an opportunity to bring that about.
There is a lack of clarity about who is on what list. It will not be practical to get everyone around the table to develop the action plans, so the group needs to be small enough to be functional. It is not at all clear to me by which criteria members of either list are being chosen—whether it is by purchasing power, land ownership or other unspecified ways in which they might have local influence.
Although I think it is right that Scottish Enterprise is on the list, I would flag a concern that I had when we had representatives of the three enterprise agencies before the committee to talk about the bill. Both South of Scotland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise appeared to understand community wealth building and their role in it, but the chief executive officer of Scottish Enterprise did not have a clear grasp of it, thinking, when asked, that bringing in foreign investment and high-paying jobs was community wealth building. It is not—that is not what community wealth building is. Those might be worthy goals, but they are absolutely not what community wealth building is. Some clear guidance on that to Scottish Enterprise will be required if it is to participate fully in developing the action plans and if it is to understand the consequences of its decisions.
Given the limited funding that is available to support community wealth building as an endeavour, it is vital to have the owners of assets around the table, so that they can be part of the discussion about how public assets can be used for the public good. That means that, instead of putting money in, you bring the people who have the wealth to the table. I am therefore proposing amendments 96 to 98. Forestry and Land Scotland is the largest landowner in Scotland; the Crown Estate owns the foreshore, which is critical for marine biodiversity and offshore energy, potentially including community energy schemes; and Network Rail owns a considerable amount of vacant and derelict land, particularly in west and central Scotland. Bringing those bodies around the table would allow their extensive assets to be used for community wealth building.
I have a fairly extensive set of amendments in this group—there are 18 in total, I think—encompassing a number of organisations.
I will start with amendment 99. The rationale for omitting some major public bodies from the list of relevant public bodies seems to be unclear, as colleagues have already expressed. Amendment 99 would insert the Scottish National Investment Bank; a national park authority established by virtue of a designation order under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000; Scottish Forestry; Forestry and Land Scotland; and Crown Estate Scotland. There is a strong rationale for the Scottish National Investment Bank, national park authorities, Forestry and Land Scotland, Scottish Forestry and the Crown Estate in Scotland to—
I spoke to representatives of the national park authorities, and they are not interested in being on that list of relevant bodies. I do not know whether the member spoke to them.
In developing my amendments I have engaged with the national park authorities primarily through Community Land Scotland; I have not engaged with the national parks directly. However, I suppose that they have a view; I suppose that we, as parliamentarians, can take a view about whether they ought to be on that list. That is a matter of judgment for individual members. I think that there is certainly a rationale for it, which merits further discussion.
In my view, those organisations should be included in the list of relevant public bodies, rather than specified public bodies, due to the size of the landholdings in which they have a controlling interest, their influence over land management and the significant financial resources that they are responsible for managing.
Amendment 130 would insert community councils: it would add them to the list of relevant public bodies included in section 5. It is vital that, if community wealth building is to be implemented coherently, it must be acted on by all public bodies, and the community council is the most granular unit of democracy in our country.
I am interested in this point. My experience of community councils is that, in many cases, they are short on resource and really struggle to deal with the business in front of them. They consist entirely of volunteers. Does the member really think that community councils have the capacity to produce action plans?
Community councils would not necessarily produce action plans, but they would certainly be involved in their development, and they ought to be cited as relevant public bodies. I mentioned the parallel with urban planning and developing community building plans. In my community of Springburn, the work of the community council was essential to winning grant funding to develop a charrette and a local place plan, which has now formed part of a city development plan.
11:15
Although I agree that community councils in general are extremely underfunded—they are the Cinderella of our democracy—there are instances in which community councils are very well attended and resourced. It is often a lottery, depending on who is available and who turns up. In some instances, community councils demonstrate value, which is worth highlighting in the bill. Perhaps it could create an impetus to resource community councils better.
Amendment 131 would insert community planning partnerships into the list of relevant public bodies in section 5. If community wellbeing is to be implemented coherently, community planning partnerships should be involved.
Amendment 132 would insert ferry operators into that list, for a similar reason: they are essential lifeline services for many communities, and they are a key wealth generator.
Amendment 133 would insert housing associations and co-operatives acting as registered social landlords into the list. It is clear that the housing association and co-op model is about more than being purely a housing provider; it is a central anchor in many communities, which are often deprived ones, and it often forms a backstop, particularly when local authority services are withdrawn—whether by providing bulk uplifts, developing regeneration projects, or resourcing communities in different ways. Often, that work is not properly recognised. Adding housing associations and co-operatives to the list would give them that status, which would be useful.
Amendment 134 would insert
“integration joint boards established by virtue of section 9 of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014.”
Often, integration joint boards take decisions that are harmful to community wealth and driven primarily by budgetary considerations and short-term financial constraints, which drive more costs on to public services overall. Giving them the remit that is set out in section 5 would be useful.
For the list in section 5, amendment 135 would insert local employability partnerships; amendment 136 would insert Marine Scotland; amendment 137 would insert ScotRail; and amendment 138 would insert universities.
For the list of specified bodies in the schedule, amendment 144 would insert Forestry and Land Scotland; amendment 145 would insert housing associations and co-operatives acting as registered social landlords; amendment 146 would insert Marine Scotland; amendment 147 would insert the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator; amendment 148 would insert public sector pension funds, on the rationale for which my colleague Richard Leonard spoke more substantively; and amendment 149 would insert the Scottish Housing Regulator.
Those who have been involved with the Scottish Housing Regulator know that it has presided over a significant decline in community-owned housing associations and co-operatives in Scotland since it was established in 2010. The rationale for including it is obvious: if it had a remit to promote community wealth building, that would support the housing sector and drive community wealth building.
Amendment 150 would insert into the list in the schedule the Scottish Prison Service, particularly given the community enterprise work that has been done at prisons such as Barlinnie, to support prisoners in developing skills. There is an opportunity to spin that work out into the community, so it should be included. Amendment 151 would insert Social Security Scotland; and amendment 152 would insert Transport Scotland.
I ask the minister to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 94.
It is worth reflecting on the list of bodies that members want to include. It is important to recognise that the relevant bodies—the community wealth building partners—already have the ability to invite specified bodies to participate in preparing the plan. That is an important piece of the plan.
It is important to get the proportionality right and not to place too many requirements on those bodies. Many of the listed bodies are not legally distinct from Scottish ministers anyway, because they are directorates of government or they are—
Will the minister give way?
Indeed.
I agree that a lot of the amendments mention specific bodies, some of which do not really want to be involved, as we have heard. Beyond that, I do not see the scope for the inclusion of some bodies that are listed in the amendments.
Beyond the bill itself, however, Mr Leonard has a good point about pension funds. Would the minister commit to looking at how we can better deal with pension funds with regard to not only community wealth building but investment in Scotland? In my opinion, that is an untapped resource. Beyond that, it is quite galling to see pension funds investing in wind farms in Vietnam—not that I have anything against Vietnam—when they could be doing similar here and likely get a better, and less risky, return. Would the minister be open to further conversations on that front?
The member is right that the proposals around local government pension schemes do not fit in with what this bill seeks to do. There are potential issues with regard to how they would conflict with the current duties on scheme managers, administering authorities, fiduciary duties and so on, which would need to be explored.
However, I absolutely agree with him on the issue more broadly. There is huge potential there, and I have engaged in that regard with local authority pension schemes and with the Deputy First Minister, who will be leading on that work as part of her investment responsibilities. The member makes a valuable point—work has already been done on that, and more is being done.
Further to that, it is interesting that the minister mentioned the Deputy First Minister’s work on investment and so on, and he rightly mentioned fiduciary duties. Ultimately, the first duty of the trustees will be to ensure that the interests of the scheme members are overseen. However, that does not stop the Scottish Government from, essentially, trying to encourage and present investment opportunities in Scotland, which may well be absolutely the sort of thing that would be in the interest of scheme members, but would also represent the interest of local communities in community wealth building.
Could such a thought be included in future investment summits or in approaches using an investment summit model to encourage the maximum investment of our pension funds in our local communities?
Yes. We are going off on a bit of a tangent here, but that is a valuable point. For example, the InvestScotland portal that was recently launched has a number of investment opportunities that have been pulled together by Government officials, working with partners. I have no doubt that many of those would fit the profile of the longer-term, patient investment that would suit local authority pension schemes.
As I said, there is work happening in that area. I am not directly leading on that, but I have been involved on the fringes of it. I think that there is absolutely potential there to do more, and more is being done in that regard.
I think that I have said all that I need to say in winding up, convener.
The question is, that amendment 94 be agreed to.
Amendment 94 agreed to.
Amendment 95 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.
Amendment 62 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
I ask members who are in favour of amendment 62 to raise their hands now, followed by those who are against the amendment. Are there any amendments?
I am sorry—I meant to say abstentions. I thought that I was going to avoid making that mistake this week.
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 62 disagreed to.
Amendment 63 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 63 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 63 disagreed to.
Amendment 64 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 64 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 64 disagreed to.
Amendment 96 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 96 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 96 disagreed to.
Amendment 97 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 97 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 97 disagreed to.
Amendment 98 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 98 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 98 disagreed to.
Amendment 99 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 99 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 99 disagreed to.
Amendment 130 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 130 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 130 disagreed to.
Amendment 131 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 131 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 131 disagreed to.
Amendment 132 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 132 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 132 disagreed to.
11:30
Amendment 133 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 133 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 133 disagreed to.
Amendment 134 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 134 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 134 disagreed to.
Amendment 135 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 135 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 135 disagreed to.
Amendment 136 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 136 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 136 disagreed to.
Amendment 137 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 137 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 137 disagreed to.
Amendment 138 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 138 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 138 disagreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
After section 6
Amendment 27, in the name of some character named Daniel Johnson, has already been debated with amendment 17. [Laughter.] I shall move the amendment.
Amendment 27 moved—[Daniel Johnson].
The question is, that amendment 27 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 27 agreed to.
Section 7—Review and revision of action plan
Amendment 65 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 65 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 65 disagreed to.
Amendment 100 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.
Amendment 19 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
After section 7
Amendment 101 moved—[Ivan McKee] and agreed to.
Section 8—Implementation of action plan
Amendment 102 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 102 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 102 disagreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
After section 8
Amendment 20 moved—[Murdo Fraser].
The question is, that amendment 20 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 20 agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Lorna Slater].
Amendments 26A to 26E not moved.
The question is, that amendment 26 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 26 disagreed to.
Amendment 39 not moved.
Amendment 39A falls.
Amendment 57 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 57 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 57 disagreed to.
Amendment 139 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 139 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 139 disagreed to.
Section 9—Guidance about community wealth building
We now move to the final group of amendments. Amendment 103, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is grouped with amendments 104, 105, 69, 66, 140 and 106.
Amendment 103 would insert:
“the role of the Scottish Ministers, community wealth building partnerships, community bodies, private businesses and landowners”.
As drafted, the bill does not sufficiently draw in the private sector or fully reflect the important role that community organisations already play. Mechanisms and intentions are needed to draw the private sector into community wealth building practices, as private interests will be a key driver in achieving community wealth building aims. Without that, there is a risk of on-going economic leakage, with wealth continuing to be extracted from local areas.
Similarly, community bodies are not sufficiently recognised in the bill. At stage 1, the committee recognised the vital importance of empowered communities in advancing community wealth building, drawing on successes in Alloa and Irvine. There should therefore be a formal recognition of third sector and community groups as essential delivery partners in shaping and delivering community wealth building action plans. Large public bodies should be important drivers of community wealth building, but community trusts and community businesses already are. They are important existing organisations, they are properly constituted entities, they employ staff and they have strong local presences in their areas. That is particularly significant in areas that are poorly serviced by the public sector.
Amendment 103 seeks to include private interests, landowners and community bodies in the bill. That would let us begin to recognise the contribution of community organisations and would indicate that private companies and landowners are subject to statutory regulation and guidance, ensuring that those groups are monitored and kept accountable for community wealth building goals.
Once the bill is enacted, guidance akin to the land rights and responsibilities statement should be developed for private businesses to use when developing their economic, social and governance credentials, to ensure that they dovetail with community wealth building efforts in their local areas.
Amendment 140 seeks to fully integrate the work of the Scottish National Investment Bank into community wealth building, allowing for a much more holistic approach to national investment and guaranteeing that community wealth values are implemented across the Scottish economy.
I move amendment 103.
The amendments in this group are really important. My amendments 104 and 105 would strengthen the guidance provisions by ensuring that ministers must provide clear guidance, not just on the statement and action plans in general, but on all the measures that they contain. Amendment 104 would add a requirement that guidance must cover the community wealth building statement, including every measure that is set out under section 1(3). That would ensure that public bodies have clarity on how each element of the statement should be interpreted and implemented. Amendment 105 would do the same for local action plans, requiring guidance on all measures included under section 5(5). That would help to ensure consistency across local authorities and support effective delivery on the ground.
There is a key issue here about making the legislation successful. Guidance from ministers will be critical in supporting local authorities and community wealth building, whether for community-owned projects, small businesses or bigger companies.
I support amendment 69 in the name of Lorna Slater. It highlights community-owned renewable energy and the skills and supply chains where we are not seeing the development that we want to. Passing that amendment would help us.
I also support the minister’s amendment 106, which is about strengthening guidance and ensuring that local authorities and specified public bodies get the right guidance and the right support to implement the legislation.
Paul Sweeney spoke articulately in support of his amendments. I see that there is also an amendment from Richard Leonard. It strengthens the impact of public sector organisations in delivering on this important legislation.
I call Lorna Slater to speak to amendment 69 and other amendments in the group.
11:45
As Sarah Boyack has said, amendment 69 is about facilitating and supporting the generation, circulation and retention of wealth in local and regional economies
“through the development of community-owned renewable energy, and skills and supply chains associated with renewable energy.”
I support amendments 105 and 106 in this group but not the others, particularly those that refer to the Scottish National Investment Bank, for reasons that I have set out previously.
I call Richard Leonard to speak to amendment 66 and other amendments in the group.
Amendment 66 seeks to require the guidance to set out the steps that the Scottish National Investment Bank and the enterprise agencies will take
“to encourage and support the development of employee-owned businesses.”
My reference point for that is the long-standing commitment to double the size of the employee-owned sector in the Scottish economy.
As this is my last amendment, I would like to make some final points. In the stage 1 debate, the minister used the expression “right and proportionate” over and over. I think that amendment 66 is right and proportionate, as have been the other amendments that I have lodged. None of them have been aimed at making the bill longer; they have been aimed at making it better.
In the end, the fundamental question is whether the legislation will bring about change. That will be the litmus test of the act. We still have time between now and the final passage of the legislation at stage 3 to see what we can do to strengthen the bill and make it a better one.
I invite the minister to speak to amendment 106 and other amendments in this group.
Amendment 106 in my name arises from a Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommendation, which the stage 1 report highlighted. The amendment introduces a requirement for Scottish ministers to consult with members of community wealth building partnerships and specified bodies before issuing guidance.
Amendment 105 in Sarah Boyack’s name achieves helpful symmetry between the content of guidance and what community wealth building partnerships might include in their action plans.
Amendment 69 highlights the
“development of community-owned renewable energy, and skills and supply chain associated with renewable energy”
as something that ministers’ guidance must cover. As the bill already provides that action plans can include measures facilitating or supporting community ownership, I think that ministerial guidance on action plans could already cover that issue. However, as the amendment is congruent with the Government’s policy intention, our position is to support it.
Amendment 66 is not required, as enterprise agencies that are listed are relevant public bodies, so will have to have regard to the guidance when preparing community wealth building action plans jointly with others. As a specified public body that is listed in the schedule, the Scottish National Investment Bank will have to have due regard to the guidance when preparing its corporate plan. In addition, ministers would not seek to include in guidance the steps that a body will take. That would imply ministerial direction or control, which I do not think would be appropriate.
The Government does not consider that amendment 140 is required. The SNIB, through its missions and articles of association, is required to take areas that support community wealth building into account and will be subject to the due regard duty in relation to community wealth building guidance as a specified body.
I invite Paul Sweeney to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 103.
The amendments in the group are generally useful and add great strength to the bill, so I commend them to the committee.
The question, therefore, is that amendment 103 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 103 disagreed to.
Amendment 104 moved—[Sarah Boyack].
The question is, that amendment 104 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 104 disagreed to.
Amendment 105 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Amendment 69 moved—[Lorna Slater].
The question is, that amendment 69 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 69 agreed to.
Amendment 66 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 66 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 66 disagreed to.
Amendment 140 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 140 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 140 disagreed to.
Amendments 106 and 107 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10—Duty to have due regard to guidance
Amendment 109 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule
Amendments 113 and 114 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.
Amendment 144 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 144 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 144 disagreed to.
Amendment 145 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 145 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 145 disagreed to.
Amendment 146 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 146 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 146 disagreed to.
Amendment 147 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 147 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 147 disagreed to.
Amendment 148 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 148 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 148 disagreed to.
Amendments 115 and 116 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.
Amendment 149 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 149 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 149 disagreed to.
Amendment 150 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 150 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 150 disagreed to.
Amendment 151 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 151 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 151 disagreed to.
Amendment 152 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 152 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 152 disagreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
After section 10
Amendment 28 moved—[Daniel Johnson].
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
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 28 disagreed to.
12:00
Amendment 29 moved—[Daniel Johnson].
Amendments 29A and 29B not moved.
The question is, that amendment 29 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 29 agreed to.
Amendment 67 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 67 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 67 disagreed to.
Amendment 68 moved—[Richard Leonard].
The question is, that amendment 68 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 68 disagreed to.
Amendment 108 moved—[Sarah Boyack].
The question is, that amendment 108 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 108 disagreed to.
Amendments 110 to 112 not moved.
Amendment 141 moved—[Sarah Boyack].
The question is, that amendment 141 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 141 disagreed to.
Amendment 142 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 142 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 142 agreed to.
Amendment 143 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 143 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 143 disagreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
Section 12—Interpretation
Amendment 117 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends our consideration of the bill at stage 2. I thank members for our efficient work today and last week. I also thank the minister for all his contributions. With that, we move into private session.
12:05
Meeting continued in private until 12:14.
Air ais
Subordinate Legislation