Seòmar agus comataidhean

I encourage members to support all four amendments in my name in the group, as well as amendment 128, in the name of Lorna Slater. Amendment 84 is a small adjustment to make it clear that local authorities and their relevant partners must develop a community wealth building action plan together, as opposed to producing one each. The latter unintended interpretation was highlighted during stage 1.

Amendments 92 and 93 are linked. Amendment 92 seeks to ensure that there is inclusive development of local action plans by adding specific requirements to consult representatives of the community, businesses and the third sector. Amendment 93 ensures that local authorities are transparent about how they consult during the preparation period and how they factor in views that have been received in framing the final document.

Amendment 100, in my name, adjusts the bill to ensure that there is clarity on local authorities’ role in publishing a revised action plan. Section 5(2) already makes it clear that the responsibility for that falls to the local authority. However, the wording of section 7(3) also needs to be tightened to make that clear. The Government’s position is to resist the rest of the amendments in the group, except amendment 128. Although existing statutory provisions set out how common good assets can be used, I do not think that introducing additional measures via the bill would impact negatively on existing provisions. Therefore, the Government’s position is to support amendment 128.

On amendment 18, I agree with the importance of consulting with businesses on community wealth building action plans, but I invite the member to speak to me about that prior to stage 3. I am concerned that obliging local authorities to consult all businesses that are operating in the relevant local area goes too far and represents a significant task. As I say, I would be happy to discuss that further and I hope to find a more workable solution for consulting businesses. In addition, it is worth highlighting amendment 92, in my name, which would require persons who are considered representatives of businesses, amongst other things, to be consulted. Should Murdo Fraser find my amendment satisfactory, perhaps he could consider withdrawing his amendment 18.

I turn to amendments 125 and 129 in Paul Sweeney’s name. The Government cannot support amendment 125, as it places too high a focus on one potential collaborative partner, namely credit unions, for community wealth building partnerships. Credit unions are important bodies in the context of community wealth building, but not to the extent that they should be isolated and elevated above others in the way that amendment 125 proposes. Amendment 129, which proposes a specific obligation on local authorities to consult credit unions, cannot be supported by the Government on the same grounds.

Richard Leonard’s amendment 61 is similar to amendment 125 in its selective focus, this time on Co-operative Development Scotland, which is part of Scottish Enterprise, the public body that will be obliged to be part of the development of every community wealth building action plan. Therefore, there is no requirement for amendment 61. I urge the member to withdraw it.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 91 reminds me of the huge importance of working with communities to maximise the impact of community wealth building as a policy and a model of local economic development. However, an obligation to consult any community bodies operating in a relevant area when preparing an action plan—in other words, all of them—seems quite onerous in practice. I respectfully ask the member to withdraw the amendment and consider supporting my amendment 92 instead, which would require there to be consultation with such persons that the community wealth building partnership considers as representatives of the interests of the community.

I encourage Lorna Slater to withdraw amendment 38, which adds additional entities that must be consulted by local authorities when preparing an action plan, and support amendment 92. The combination of the proposed consultation requirements, as amended by my proposed amendments, and statutory guidance can address the issue of adequate consultation.

Finally, on Richard Leonard’s amendment 65, the Government cannot support imposing a requirement to update action plans every year. In my view, that is too frequent. Further, that would need to be discussed with COSLA and others prior to committing community wealth building partners to an annual timescale for revising action plans.

I have a few brief comments. I hear Paul Sweeney’s points about credit unions. My previous comments were not intended to downplay the critical importance of credit unions; they were more a reflection on how other types of bodies could or should be considered in the same vein when we articulate the legislation. Having said that, I am happy to meet Paul Sweeney and engage on that point in advance of stage 3, to talk through the Government’s position.

I thank Murdo Fraser for agreeing not to move his amendment 18, and look forward to engaging with him on that specific point on businesses.

On Sarah Boyack’s point about community bodies, there are real concerns about how to define a community body and how to find out how many there are in any given area—there could be many hundreds of them. What would happen if you miss one? I get the intent behind her amendment, but it is an impractical approach to address the issue.

I press amendment 84.

The Government position is not to support any of the amendments in this group. Amendment 6, in the name of Lorna Slater, would impose a legal obligation on the Scottish Government to consider the contents and relevance of its published community wealth building statement when making any other Government policy, including proposals for legislation. Seeking a productive synergy between linked Government policy should be a staple for any Administration, and I do not think that we need an obligation to undertake such activity to be set out in primary legislation. We should also bear in mind the principle of parliamentary accountability, wherein the reporting requirement lies.

Amendment 124, from Paul Sweeney, would impose a legal obligation on ministers to implement their community wealth building statement. The statement is a list of measures that the Scottish ministers are taking or intending to take, so I see no necessity to compel the Scottish ministers to be legally obliged to implement the measures. There will also, rightly, be scrutiny by Parliament through the mechanisms of laying the statement and the reports on progress before it.

Amendment 102 from Paul Sweeney would amend section 8 of the bill to remove the words

“so far as reasonably practicable”

from the provision. The revised provision would state:

“community wealth building partners must implement the measures set out”

in their action plan. That would obligate local authorities and the relevant public bodies to implement actions as set out in the plan, even if they prove to be impractical or impossible to deliver for any reason. My concern is that that would reduce flexibility and might actually inhibit the ambition of community wealth building partnerships.

Although their intention of promoting accessibility is understandable, the amendments requiring standardised machine-readable formats for the various statements and reports are not necessary. The Scottish ministers and local authorities are already required to make the documents and websites accessible via other legislation. It is not just a question of the amendments being unnecessary—there is a further dimension in that including them would risk the primary legislation becoming dated. Technology evolves at such a pace that I would be concerned that multiple future amendments would be required for the legislation to keep pace. We should—

Yes.

I take the point, but I think that my earlier point stands. That requirement is already laid down in other legislation, which means that there is no need for it in the bill and, on the principle of not adding extra provisions to the bill that are covered elsewhere, I still urge members to vote against the amendments.

I would be happy to instruct my officials to include the topic of accessibility and format standardisation in the guidance development discussions, and to include representations from the relevant bodies and other organisations, such as COSLA, public bodies and the third and business sectors.

This is a large group of amendments, so I will try to be brief. I will begin by talking to the five amendments in my name, and I will then comment on those that other members have lodged.

Amendments 75 and 87 will ensure that supported businesses are listed in the bill, alongside employee-owned businesses, co-operatives and social enterprises. Supported businesses are important to many disabled workers who want to access work, and amendments 75 and 87 will ensure that promoting supported businesses can feature in the statement and the local community wealth building action plans. The Scottish Government intends to support amendment 21, in the name of Lorna Slater, which is in a different group, and, under amendment 75, commentary on supported businesses will have to feature in the ministerial statement.

The intention of amendments 76 and 88 is to ensure, by referring to the promotion of access to investment opportunities, that the financial pillar of community wealth building is represented in the list of measures that may feature in the statement and local action plans.

Amendment 81 will future proof the ministerial statement. Giving the Scottish ministers, through regulation, the power to modify the list of measures that feature in the ministerial statement is prudent, especially if amendment 21 is supported. Furthermore, it is right that any regulation of that nature should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I urge members to support those five amendments in my name.

Although I appreciate the motivation for all the other amendments in the group, which have been lodged by colleagues, and while my door is open to further discussion prior to stage 3, I confirm that the Government’s position is to resist all amendments in the group, apart from Lorna Slater’s amendments 3, 4, 36, 15 and 16, Richard Leonard’s amendment 51 and Rhoda Grant’s amendment 86. I urge members to support those amendments, but not the others in the group.

I will quickly set out the rationale for the Government’s position with reference to the amendments that have been lodged by colleagues. I see merit in exploring through further policy dialogue the proposals that Richard Leonard has made in his amendments—other than those in amendment 51, which we support. I think that more consultation is required with stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as well as further consideration from a legal and cost standpoint, before a proposition for primary legislation can be framed. As I have indicated in my conversations with Mr Leonard, I am sympathetic to the concepts in the Marcora approach and the Italian legislation, but a significant part of that would impinge on reserved legislation with regard to corporate law and employment law, and that would need to be considered.

Co-operatives are already in the bill. Section 1(3)(f) explicitly mentions

“supporting the development of … co-operatives”.

11:00

I understand Richard Leonard’s intentions on insourcing, but the unintended consequence of setting out a preference for insourcing over outsourcing is that it would prevent the very businesses that we are trying to support locally from gaining contracts with public enterprises via public procurement. The work of the economic democracy group, which was formed following a recommendation in the Scottish Government-commissioned independent review on developing Scotland’s inclusive and democratic businesses, should include consideration of Richard Leonard’s proposals alongside all recommendations made in that review.

I appreciate Lorna Slater’s strong interest in the bill and the work that she has done on a range of amendments. However, the Government’s position is to resist all members’ amendments in this group except those that I have already indicated support for. Although I have sympathy with some of the policy ideas that drive many of the amendments, they need further consultation and, in some cases, detailed consideration of extant law.

As I have said, I want to keep the bill focused on economic development, and specifically on the creation of a new local format for local economic development actions. Other policy areas feed into the development of a successful economy, but I do not want to overburden future community wealth building ministerial statements with mandatory requirements to include matters that stray across too wide a range of Government policies. In keeping with all the stage 2 amendments that Opposition members have lodged, I expect my officials to feature the ideas that have driven them in future community wealth building policy development, including in the preparation of guidance, which, as I have indicated, is already under way.

For similar reasons, the Government’s position is to resist the amendments in Paul Sweeney’s name in the group. As I have set out, they need more policy development and stakeholder dialogue, as well as work on resultant costs. Again, I am interested in the themes that are raised by the amendments, and I look forward to having further policy dialogue in the next parliamentary session. However, it is too early to commit such proposals to primary legislation without that work being done.

Sarah Boyack’s amendments focus on promoting the creation of a community wealth fund on the part of the Scottish ministers and on local community wealth building partnerships. That is a complex area of work that requires more design, thinking and dialogue, which I am happy to engage with the member on.

I am happy to look at them and consider them.

The Government supports amendment 34, which is in a similar vein to amendment 5, in Murdo Fraser’s name, except that Lorna Slater’s amendment focuses on consulting

“local authorities, community organisations, and social enterprises.”

Regarding amendment 35, it is critical that businesses are consulted on any draft community wealth building statement. Any responsible Government would talk to businesses in that context. The bill already states:

“Ministers must … consult with such persons as they consider appropriate.”

I am also concerned that the way that the amendment is worded might require ministers to consult each and every business that is potentially affected, which would not be practical. However, I am happy to discuss the matter with Lorna Slater before stage 3, perhaps building on the content of amendment 34 to arrive at a more comprehensive and workable list of key consultees.

Amendment 52 is in a similar vein. Again, a specific obligation to consult Co-operative Development Scotland when preparing the community wealth building statement is not required, because it forms part of Scottish Enterprise, which, along with many other bodies and partners, will be consulted on a draft statement. A future Administration should be allowed to choose how to conduct an inclusive consultation exercise. However, as I said, I am happy to discuss the matter with colleagues before stage 3.

The Government does not support amendment 53. Moving from a five-year cycle of revision of the statement to a one-year cycle does not allow enough time for progress to be monitored and for new measures to be formulated. It would trap the Government in a perpetual cycle of continually revising the statement. Should five years prove too long, ministers are obliged to keep the statement under review and they can revise it at any point.

I urge members not to move the amendments in this group. If they do, I urge members not to support them, with the exception of amendments 23 and 34.

That is in the code of conduct, which businesses need to comply with in order to be able to access the relief.

I do not think that I or my officials have anything on the specifics of that. We might need to come back to you.