Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendments 125 and 129 serve the same purpose and are intentionally designed to reinforce the role of credit unions as part of community wealth building in Scotland. The minister was rather dismissive of their role and their unique position in the Scottish economy. Scotland has an extremely concentrated banking system, with the clearing banks dominating that system.

Credit unions in Scotland demonstrate remarkable reach compared with those in other parts of the UK. They serve almost half a million members in Scotland with £0.75 billion in loans. Given that credit unions penetrate 9 per cent of the population, there is a huge opportunity to build on those unique assets in Scotland. To dismiss or not recognise that exceptional situation is rather unfair, so I hope that the minister will reconsider his position and perhaps look at the matter again, if he is not minded to support my amendments at this stage.

Amendment 122 seeks to insert a requirement for the Scottish ministers to respond to the “Developing Scotland’s Economy” report. That would be an important measure, as it would add democratic business models to the heart of the bill by making it a requirement for the Scottish ministers to respond to the report, which explores inclusive and democratic business models, and then to actively consider how that should be integrated into the community wealth building statements.

Amendment 123 gives the Scottish ministers the opportunity to include community share and bond models as a way of allowing community benefit societies or co-operatives to issue shares and fundraising assets. That creates the option for more democratic and inclusive business models, allowing for greater diversification of Scotland’s community wealth.

I move amendment 122.

I am open to discussing these matters with the minister further, but I do not think that it is entirely onerous for the Government to have to cross-reference how a report that it commissioned interfaces with the bill. It is a relatively minor piece of work, but it demonstrates confidence that there is coherence in the Government’s approach, so there are no real issues with amendment 122.

Regarding amendment 123, given the context of the slow decline of Co-operative Development Scotland and the enterprise agencies, which has been reported, it is really important that it is explicitly put in the bill that community benefit societies and co-operatives should be developed in a clear, practical way, including through the issuing of equity and share capital to allow them to fundraise for community ownership, if necessary. It is a really useful exercise, and the Government should think about how it mandates Co-operative Development Scotland, which has been on a downward trajectory in the last few years, and how it rejuvenates the organisation within Scottish Enterprise. It is a useful test to see where the Government will take CDS in the future. With that in mind, I am minded to press amendment 122 and to move amendment 123 at this stage.

The point about a systems approach is interesting. Will you comment on the Scottish Government’s assessment of the financial co-benefits of the actions that are described in the draft plan? How can those be used and understood alongside modelling done by the ECCI?

You have talked about taking a public health approach, but do you think that, say, a continuing professional development programme and additional guidance are needed in the public sector, too? When financial controllers in certain departments plan budget allocations, how can they model the benefits correctly if those are not envisaged or understood? What happens when they plan, say, a railway line or council services such as proactive street cleaning or dealing with blocked-up drains so that they do not flood people’s houses?

That was really helpful. It would be interesting to explore the links with, say, the national planning framework, appraisals under the Scottish transport appraisal guidance and so on. Thank you for that.

We will bring them in if they get connected.

How can local authorities, integration joint boards, health and social care partnerships, health boards and so on better signal the impacts in their budget planning? Does better support in relation to national policy need to be identified in the CCP? How do you tie that together in a coherent way? It is one thing to have a plan but, if it does not have a linkage to operational plans, it might not have any real impact.

I will begin with a question about the lack of focus on mental health in the draft climate change plan. Climate change has had a massive impact on people’s mental wellbeing, for example in Glasgow, where an increase in rainfall has caused significant increases in flooding incidents in people’s homes. In a recent study by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, 57 per cent of UK adults said that their mental health had been impacted by the climate crisis, yet, as far as I can see, that issue is not considered in the plan. Do you agree that there needs to be a greater focus on mental health in considering the impacts of climate change?

I will move on to the financial costs and benefits of the plan. We know that there are significant financial pressures on local government. Is the current funding model for mental health services in Scotland robust enough to meet the demands of the climate crisis?

Would Mr Murdoch or Ms MacAlpine like to add any comments in relation to that?