Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would appreciate it if you could write to us to let us know what protections there are.

Finally, are there any issues in the trade agreement that would be problems if the UK or an independent Scotland were to rejoin the EU?

Thank you, convener. I had said that I have two questions, but I actually have three. First, in your opening remarks, minister, you said that suppliers in India will have equal access to the Scottish market. We have just been discussing the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill and prioritising local procurement—in some cases, it will be hyperlocal—to support communities. How do we balance that? How do we reconcile the interests of free trade and those of community wealth building? Has that been part of your consideration?

On a similar theme, the committee has discussed the outsourcing of our carbon footprint. In Scotland, we more or less keep alignment with the European Union on things such as pesticides and other environmental regulations. By joining the free trade agreement with India, are we allowing the import of goods such as foods that have been grown with harmful pesticides and products that are manufactured with harmful environmental impacts? Are we outsourcing our carbon footprint and environmental damage?

My final question is about skills. I know that you covered this slightly with Michelle Thomsons, but, in terms of optimising our spend in the skills space with the Withers review and the restructuring of that space, how have you made decisions about where that money is optimally spent, and which elements of the skills landscape are you choosing to invest in?

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.

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.

That is an interesting approach. We have taken evidence a few times from the enterprise agencies, and it seemed that there was no clear data on whether it was better for them to give out money or to teach businesses to go and find funding for themselves. It was a sort of “give a man a fish or teach a man to fish” situation. By cutting resource spend while increasing capital spend, we seem to be planning to give out more fish instead of supporting businesses to go and get their own funding. Was that intentional?

I note the Scottish Government’s discomfort with some of the legislation in this space because it has not consented to the underlying legislation. However, this particular piece of legislation seems to be small enough and technical enough, so I understand the Scottish Government’s reason for consenting to it.

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 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.