Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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—

Indeed.

I start by confirming that the Government will support Lorna Slater’s amendment 21, which makes the list of measures in section 1(3) mandatory rather than discretionary. It is right that a core compulsory suite of measures is covered in a community wealth building ministerial statement. However, a fit-for-purpose core set was included in the bill at introduction, subject to some small modifications, which are the subject of my amendments in the next group.

My amendment in this group, amendment 71, seeks to make it clear that, although community wealth building is an economic policy that can make a contribution to growth, the form of growth that we seek is sustainable and inclusive.

I know that Lorna Slater lodged amendment 70 to remove section 1(2)(b) from the bill entirely, but I consider the pursuit of growth to be critical for Scotland’s economic future and a core objective of the bill, and I do not think that the bill mentions GDP per se. I hope that the member will withdraw her amendment and support the amendment in my name to clarify the nature of the growth that is sought. I urge all members to support my amendment 71.

The Government will support Sarah Boyack’s amendment 72, although there is room for debate about whether any particular economic growth is or is not in line with the United Nations resolution referenced in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, to which the amendment refers. The community wealth building statement can encompass that, even if the UN goals are due to be reviewed in 2030. I urge members to support amendment 72 and the associated amendment 117.

The Government position on all other amendments in the group is not to support them. I will take each in turn briefly. Amendment 30 is not required, chiefly as the pillars of community wealth building are already reflected, albeit not specifically referred to, in section 1(3) of the bill as introduced. I also have concerns that there may not be universal agreement about what the five pillars of community wealth building comprise, and that using such high-level concepts in legislation without defining them could create uncertainty. Their implementation can best be taken forward in guidance.

On amendment 73, in Sarah Boyack’s name, highlighting community organisations and local businesses as the intended beneficiaries of community wealth building activity is too narrow. The amendment would restrict the measures that ministers could take in the community wealth building statement to those supporting the generation, circulation and retention of wealth only by community organisations and local businesses, not more broadly. Therefore, the amendment does not attract Government support.

Although I understand that Sarah Boyack’s amendment 74 has the same intention as Lorna Slater’s amendment 21, I ask the member to withdraw amendment 74 and support amendment 21. In essence, it comes down to the word “must” being stronger and less ambiguous than “should” in this context.

Regarding amendment 40, in Lorna Slater’s name, the Government’s position is that such activity in the energy policy context is best taken forward in guidance. The Government wants to avoid a lengthy prescriptive list of mandatory measures in the bill that must feature in a ministerial statement, and the current drafting offers flexibility for those matters to be included without being specifically mentioned in the bill.

The Government does not support Lorna Slater’s amendment 32, as the actions set out in the statement will need time to evidence support of the delivery of national planning framework outcomes. Describing in the statement the relevant indicators of success for community wealth building is an approach that any Government should consider. However, in my view, it is not appropriate for primary legislation to oblige future Administrations to abide by an overly exacting list of mandatory demands as to how they should approach the preparation of the statement.

Finally, on amendment 79, in the name of Lorna Slater, local authorities are already under a statutory duty in section 102 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 to establish and maintain a register of property held by the authority as part of the common good. That duty has been in force since June 2018. If local authorities are not complying with a statutory duty within a reasonable timescale, I am not clear that including provision in a statement will be effective in bringing them into compliance. To the extent that there is an issue with non-compliance by local authorities, the community wealth building statements proposed by this bill are not, in my view, the place to address that.

I will make one or two more general points, if I may, convener. It is clear that there is widespread support for the bill among stakeholders, but it is important that we give community wealth building the best chance to succeed. That requires a clear focus and requires the bill to create a consistent platform for implementation. It is therefore important to avoid unnecessary administration burdens on public bodies, local authorities and others. The guidance in that regard—you will be aware of the work that we have done on that—is important.

The Government’s position is to resist all amendments in this group except amendment 82. I ask members who have lodged the remaining amendments to withdraw them, and I will briefly explain why.

With regard to amendment 82, in the name of Sarah Boyack, the provision in the bill as it stands is proportionate in respect of progress reporting. However, reporting on the impact of the community wealth building statement and the measures that are contained in it, in the way that is suggested by the amendment, might complement the bill, so I am content to support that amendment.

Sarah Boyack has lodged amendment 108, which would oblige the Scottish ministers to commission an independent review of the impact of the measures in the statement, and her amendment 83 relates to reporting on the steps taken in response to such a review. The Government’s position is that it should be accountable to Parliament and that primary legislation is not required for a future Administration to commission an independent review. Our position is therefore not to support amendment 108 in group 9 or amendment 83 in this group, to which it is linked.

On amendments 33 and 35, regarding the use of metrics, substantial dialogue would be needed with COSLA and others before the inclusion of commentary on metrics in the guidance. The guidance that must be prepared under section 9 will be developed alongside the ministerial statement, and that guidance is the appropriate place to set out advice on monitoring progress. That is particularly important at the local level, where economic structures vary significantly between communities. At the national level, community wealth building connects to many other policy areas, so guidance will ensure coherence and alignment across those links. Work on measurement at large should be conducted as part of the guidance work strand. That will inform the approach of ministers as to what could be in a national statement about targets and objectives.

Amendment 54, in Richard Leonard’s name, specifically highlights reporting on businesses that are operating with inclusive and democratic business models. That issue may well feature in reports on progress that are required under section 4. However, the amendment is too specific in obliging reporting on certain types of businesses only.

The Government does not support Richard Leonard’s amendments 55 and 56, which seek a move to a yearly reporting cycle instead of five-yearly reporting. Such a short reporting interval is not desirable in a policy context where change in outcome terms needs to be measured and observed over a longer timescale.

I therefore urge members not to press or move those amendments, and, if they are pressed or moved, not to support them.

The Government’s position is to resist all amendments in the group, except for amendments 23 and 34, in Lorna Slater’s name.

With regard to amendment 23, ministers are already obliged to

“have regard to the just transition principles set out in section 35C of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009”,

so the amendment is not essential, but, in order to strengthen the obligation in an economic policy context, we are, on balance, able to support it.

11:45

With regard to amendment 122, the economic democracy group is already looking at all recommendations made in the independent report “Developing Scotland’s Economy: Increasing The Role Of Inclusive And Democratic Business Models”. I therefore see no need for the amendment, because the work of that group can feed into the first community wealth building statement.

In response to Richard Leonard’s earlier comments about the group not meeting, I understand that the group met last year. The group falls under the business minister’s portfolio and is chaired by senior officials. My officials are very happy to engage with Mr Leonard to advise him about the group’s status.

On amendment 123, the matter of using community share and bond models involves a level of detail that is best suited to the guidance. The bill intends to provide a framework for the preparation of a statement and action plans, not to prescribe consideration of specific financial mechanisms.