Chamber and committees

I ask Bryan McGrath the same question about support for commercial enterprises that have a for-good mission.

You followed my train of thought into the community wealth building space, so thank you for that. Are there things in that space that we—by which I mean the Scottish Government, enterprise agencies and all of us working together—should focus on slightly differently to maximise the benefits that social and community groups in our town centres, or the communities that live in and rely on them, need?

Derek, I realise that the conversation drifted into community wealth building and resilience, and I did not give you the opportunity to pick up on those.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us and for your comments so far. Bill Lindsay, you have spoken a couple of times about flexibility in planning policy, both the need for it and the potential problems that flexibility can cause with regard to not being directive enough. What are your thoughts around the town centre first principle? I know that it is a principle rather than a specific policy. It is designed to support town centre development and regeneration, yet we still see planning departments giving permission to out-of-town developments that take social and economic capital away from town centres. Can you comment on that?

You said in answer to question earlier that one of your roles is to facilitate and enable the implementation of the vision that you want to see. Following on from that point, how do we make sure that vision for the town centre, taking account of the town centre first principle, pulls in all the connections and resources? How do you make sure those processes are supported and sustained to create the blueprint for a town centre that provides a liveable space for everyone?

The UK is one of the most unequal countries in the world, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Vast amounts of wealth and assets are held by a small number of people. Indeed, The Sunday Times rich list shows that the number of billionaires in the UK is at an all-time high. There are 177 billionaires—people who saw their wealth rise by 9.4 per cent over the past year.

Scotland’s top 10 billionaires have a combined wealth of over £23 billion. At a time when so many people are way beyond facing the choice between heating their homes and eating—they can afford neither—it is clear that our economic system is broken.

Current models of economic development have failed to redistribute wealth and to provide adequately for all people in all our communities. Our economy is far from well, so today’s debate is both welcome and important.

Community wealth building will not fix all our economy’s ills, but it is an attempt to roll back one of the most damaging Thatcherite initiatives of the 1980s—that of moving public spending from something that should benefit the public to something that benefited the big corporations that were invited to tender for public services. Compulsory competitive tendering has resulted in the funnelling of money out of our communities. For too long, we have heard that bundling contracts creates efficiency, that the cheapest bid is the best and that the public pound should be used to increase private profits, not public good. Enough.

We know that we need to be more resilient and that strong, resourceful and innovative communities are better able to organise and work together to look out for each other and improve the lives of all their members. Community wealth building offers a meaningful way to support that work, and we are not starting from scratch. We can build on the social solidarity that developed in many places during the pandemic, and we can put community organising and wealth building at the heart of our plans for a green recovery.

We must do that as we continue to deal with the pandemic and, of course, tackle climate breakdown. We must do it in a way that builds the foundations of a new economy—one that is focused on community wealth.

In other words, we want to re-establish a community-based way of life: one that sees the value in, and of, society; one that increases economic self-reliance and local control over people’s environments and their decision-making structures; and one that sees the connections and interdependencies between the economy, our environment and our society.

That approach means that people and their labour must matter more than capital. Our local and regional economies must recognise that people matter more than corporate bottom lines. We cannot let the market and capital call all the shots if we want to build community wealth. Thriving local and regional economies require local ownership, whereby the control and economic advantages are spread more broadly—for example, through co-operative, community or employee ownership models. That guards against the extraction of wealth on behalf of those at the top.

Earlier, the minister highlighted the importance of grass-roots engagement and participation to community wealth building. We need active participation in strong and robust democratic structures, because, despite what neoliberalism tells us, communities are not made up of isolated individuals who are engaged in civic life only as passive consumers. Localising investment and capital circulation matters, too. When goods and services are produced and purchased locally, that money stays in the community for longer, because local businesses are more likely to spend locally. That translates into greater local prosperity, greater community stability and a tighter-knit network of local people and businesses, which are all key to building community wealth. Imagine if we used our collective community wealth for good, rather than to fuel the casino economy that does little to provide for all.

However, building community is about much more than just having money circulating locally; it is about the power that comes from building lasting relationships of mutual support. Fostering effective collaboration between anchor organisations, local government and neighbourhood residents is not just a matter of convenience or capacity; it is utterly intrinsic to the project of community wealth building.

Place really matters, but place making does not happen by accident. Places need coherent strategies in order that local assets work to build local wealth. In addition, as others have mentioned, there need to be coherent connections to transport and other infrastructure that is vital to community survival.

In closing, I record my thanks to organisations including Community Land Scotland, the Development Trusts Association Scotland and Community Enterprise in Scotland for highlighting the vital work of anchor organisations. I thank them, too, for highlighting what we can learn from other community-focused legislation that the Parliament has passed and for pointing out the need to now make things happen to a timescale that does not lead to drift and disinterest.

Last week, Pauline Smith from the Development Trusts Association Scotland told the Economy and Fair Work Committee that

“we are not reinventing the wheel here. Different terminology is used … Development trusts, CEIS and other agencies have supported those organisations to create community wealth and make things happen in their communities. To be honest, I think that we just need to work together, and we all have a part to play.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 18 May; c 8.]

Let us just get on with it.

Can the minister outline what support is available specifically for rural communities, such as those in the north-east, where specialist mental health facilities might not be available locally and where accessible public transport connections are not sufficient or even available to enable people to easily access services based elsewhere?

Good morning. Bruce, in your opening remarks, you highlighted three areas of concern or where you wish there to be greater clarity. Can you give us some more detail on your questions around the role of the registrar general and how you see those issues being dealt with effectively?

Thanks, Bruce. That is helpful. In your opening remarks, you clearly highlighted the positive duty that we have to ensure young people’s access to those rights. You talk about the administrative process and the need for that to be a child-friendly and clear process. Are there any examples from elsewhere of an administrative process for gender recognition that is not adequate or has fallen short in some way?

That is helpful.

Bruce Adamson, your submission mentions potential concern for care-experienced young people in relation to the provision. Can you say a little more about that?