Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 128 seeks to ensure that local authorities consider the use and disposal of common good land and assets when developing their action plans. As other members, including Rhoda Grant, have highlighted, common good land and assets will be significant in relation to the development of those plans.

I would like members to particularly consider amendment 38, the purpose of which is to ensure that local democratic organisations such as community councils and development trusts, organisations that are already working on community wealth building in the area and key private companies such as major local employers are included. A key concern that was flagged by stakeholders in the committee’s stage 1 evidence sessions is that existing organisations, such as community development trusts, that are already working on community wealth building and that have substantial local knowledge and experience can be completely excluded from the development of action plans. The development trusts that we heard from specifically asked that they be included, and it seems counterproductive to ignore the experience and expertise that they can bring to the process.

It also seems sensible to include private firms that are substantial local employers or landowners. I think that Murdo Fraser’s amendment 18 attempts to do something similar.

I think that Sarah Boyack, through amendment 91, is looking to do something similar to what I am trying to do through amendment 38, but I think that her wording is too broad. My amendment describes democratic community groups, which include community councils, so it is more specific and representative.

I do not disagree with the intention of Paul Sweeney’s amendments 125 and 129, but they would be in slightly odd places in the bill, so the matter could perhaps be reconsidered at stage 3.

I think that the annual reporting requirements that are set out in amendment 65 would be too onerous, so I will not support that amendment.

My amendments in the group are intended to make the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill more robust and to ensure that it adheres coherently to the principles of community wealth building.

By structuring the statement’s objectives around the community wealth building pillars and connecting it to the national performance framework, amendments 30 and 32 intend that the bill will hardwire community wealth building into Scotland’s broader economic, social and environmental architecture.

I have a particular interest in amendment 70. A bill with a single purpose is much clearer and easier to implement than one with two possibly conflicting purposes. The goal of pursuing economic growth is to maximise gross domestic product, which is very much at odds with the goal of reducing inequality and supporting the little local guy against big corporations.

No witness at the Economy and Fair Work Committee identified economic growth as a useful metric for measuring community wealth building, so I argue that it has no place in the bill. We are trying to grow something entirely different here—resilience and local wealth. We are not just trying to maximise GDP, so why reference something that can be measured only in GDP? We know that GDP is not an effective measure of community wealth building. If we measure the wrong thing, we get the wrong outcomes, so why not remove it from the bill altogether and remove the confusion?

In amendment 40, I am explicitly picking out the development of community-owned renewable energy, given the size and importance of that sector to communities across Scotland, not to mention the opportunities that it offers.

Amendment 21 would change “may” to “must” to ensure consistency and impact across Scotland.

On amendment 79, not all local authorities currently even comply with their statutory duty on common good land and assets registers. Without a deadline for that compliance, they have just failed utterly. They have had 10 years to do this, and it is time to press them on it.

On Sarah Boyack’s amendment 73, individuals also need to build wealth, not just businesses and organisations. When individuals own shares in a local enterprise or take dividends from a community energy project, they are sharing in the wealth, which I think is right. Unfortunately, I cannot therefore support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 73.

I move amendment 30.

On the Government’s amendments 76 and 88, I would like members to pay close attention, as I am particularly worried. My concern is that their phrasing may cover external and foreign investment, which is exactly the opposite of community wealth building, the whole point of which is for communities of Scottish people to acquire assets and build wealth, not to bring in external people who will invest and acquire assets for themselves. On the face of it, those amendments appear to totally undermine the purpose of the bill, and I strongly request that the Scottish Government does not move them but reconsiders the wording before stage 3; otherwise, it risks undermining the bill altogether.

I agree with the idea in Paul Sweeney’s amendment 119, but I am not sure that he has put it into the right part of the bill, so I will not support the amendment.

On amendment 120, I am unclear about what Paul Sweeney proposes. Is it that ministers lean on credit unions to make potentially bad loans? That would not make sense. I would support an amendment that supported new credit unions, the expansion of credit unions or the engagement of community groups with credit unions, but I cannot support amendment 120 as worded.

I have no further remarks to make, other than to press amendment 33.

Amendment 23 brings consideration of just transition principles into the bill. Amendment 34 is a proposal to integrate the five community wealth building pillars into the bill in a slightly different way than my previous amendments 30 and 32. By structuring the statement’s objectives around the five community wealth building pillars and connecting them to the national performance framework outcomes, the bill can hardwire community wealth building into Scotland’s broader economic, social and environmental architecture.

On Murdo Fraser’s amendment 5, the member and I have both proposed amendments that include businesses to varying degrees, so I think that we all spotted the same gap. Perhaps the minister has proposed amendments on that as well. However, I prefer my approach, so I will not be supporting Murdo Fraser’s amendment on this occasion.

Amendment 53, from Richard Leonard, again, has too frequent reporting and is not a good use of resources. Amendment 123, from Paul Sweeney, is a bit awkwardly worded and specific. Again, I think that Paul Sweeney is on the right track, but perhaps he should reconsider the wording before stage 3.

One of my concerns is that the community wealth building statement should not become something that the Scottish Government can just publish and ignore, so amendment 6 seeks to compel ministers to take action in line with their statement. The form of words is based on that in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, so I believe that the approach is sound.

I would like to understand from the minister what his preferred approach is to ensure that the statement is more than just a bit of paper on the shelf, and, if he does not prefer my proposed approach, how it will connect with policy and other legislation in an integrated way.

Paul Sweeney’s amendments in this group highlight the same point, so the Government will need to address it—if not at stage 2, then at stage 3.

I move amendment 6.

Too often, when public bodies publish data, they do so in a format that does not lend itself to analysis, such as scanned hard copies or PDFs. These amendments seek to ensure that all data must be published in a suitable format for analysis.

There are two different types of amendments in the group. One explicitly calls for a standardised machine-readable format and the other gives the Scottish ministers the option to specify by regulation the format of data that is to be published. Those are two slightly different approaches but both are intended to ensure that any data that is produced can be analysed in a straightforward way.

Will the minister give way?

Amendment 8 says:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations specify further details about the format”.

The related amendments in the group say something similar. Therefore, I am not seeking for the bill to specify what the format should be. I would be allowing ministers to adjust that as we go forward. Is that not acceptable?

I thank the witnesses for coming to the committee this morning—it is lovely to see you. I am a member of Unite the Union, and it is always good to have the unions before the committee.

My first question is about how the transition to a net zero economy will change the shape of our economy. I have been reading that, globally, investment in clean energy is double the current investment in fossil fuels. What does that mean for economic success in Scotland as we transition? How does the climate change plan affect our competitiveness, and how does it compare with what other countries are doing? Is it how we will move forward and improve our economy, or are we disadvantaging ourselves? What are the opportunities and how do we make sure that we seize them?