The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13523, in the name of Marco Biagi, on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights to signify Crown consent to the bill.
For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
Many thanks. We can now begin the debate.
19:02
I have not emptied a room this quickly since I got up to do karaoke at the party conference.
I thank the members of all parties who have contributed today and who are still here. I also thank the huge number of people who, throughout the past three years, have contributed to making the bill what it is today. It has been a collective effort between Government, Parliament and the grass roots, as befits a bill that is all about community empowerment. The bill is all the better for their participation and the challenge and input that they provided.
On behalf of my colleagues, I thank Rob Gibson and the members of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for their incredibly detailed scrutiny of the community right to buy. I also thank Kevin Stewart and the members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for their thorough scrutiny of the bill during stages 1 and 2, including some interesting meetings that I was present at, enjoying the hospitality and debate. Both committees must be applauded for taking evidence from such a wide range of organisations and individuals. That really careful, balanced consideration of the proposals led to an improved bill that will make a significant difference to communities throughout Scotland for years to come.
At stage 2, I accepted amendments from all sides, which shows that, when good ideas are proposed to the Government, it will listen to them wherever they come from. That has continued today in discussions that have often been more about detail than fundamental disagreements on principle.
From the national outcomes to participation requests, from football to allotments, I am pleased that we have that shared vision and desire for more empowerment of and participation from communities of all types across Scotland. The focus has been on ensuring that we have legislation that will lift up and free the voices of people across Scotland who want to take part. We want to let them set local agendas in line with their wishes and concerns.
If I were to sum up the headings of the bill, there would be a series of them. The first would be participation. In the bill, participation requests provide a mechanism for communities to gain a proactive role in how local services are planned and delivered, so that they can take part. Community bodies will be able to use the bill to discuss with service providers how they could better meet their users’ needs, and they will be able to offer volunteers to support a service or even propose to take over the delivery of the service. Participation requests will be a powerful tool that will enable communities to take action on their terms. I want that to spread and take root, so that there is a go-to point for those communities that wish to realise their ambitions. People will be able to highlight where improvements can be made and suggest solutions as to how things can be taken forward and be delivered together.
I thank the minister for allowing that to happen for one particular community in my constituency: the community of south Cowal. The minister was very helpful in ensuring that the relevant amendments were drafted and accepted by the committee and by Parliament, and they will give new hope to a community that desperately wants to purchase Castle Toward but is being prevented from doing that by a recalcitrant and backward-looking local authority. The bill gives real hope, and the community of south Cowal is grateful to him and will be grateful to the Parliament if it passes the bill at decision time.
Michael Russell will be very glad to have put that on the record, and I am certainly happy to put on record my support for communities that wish to take up the opportunities to participate that the bill presents.
Will the minister give way?
In a moment.
To help with our move towards participation and empowerment, at stage 2 we put a new power in the bill that will require all public bodies to promote and facilitate the participation of people and communities in their decisions and activities. That is a challenge, but it is one that is worth accepting. We know that already there are people out there who are pioneering techniques such as participatory budgeting, which Malcolm Chisholm will know very well from the Leith decides initiative in his constituency.
During consideration of amendments I raised a point about arm’s-length external organisations, which I believe are not mentioned in the bill. Will the minister confirm that they will definitely be included in regulations?
Yes. I noticed the omission and I was going to come back to it in my closing remarks. I am happy to answer that question right now. ALEOs are not listed in schedule 3 and are not public authorities, but the Scottish Government has the ability to designate by order additional organisations under certain circumstances, provided they meet certain qualifications. There is a blurred boundary between what is a public body and what is an entirely private body, and we must be aware of competence, but the bill has that provision and—as we did with allotments, following a particular concern about them—we will seek to ensure that ALEOs fall within the spirit of the bill, in so far as they are bodies that deliver on behalf of the public sector.
The community right-to-buy process has evolved over the past few years and the bill takes it much further than it has been before. However, there is nothing to stop it evolving further. For example, in the future a community of anglers might have the right to buy out the netting rights of one of Scotland’s great fishing rivers. That sort of thing could be given active consideration as the process moves forward.
Yes. That takes me back to the discussion that I had with Alex Fergusson on amendments regarding communities of interest. In this bill we are allowing the transfer of public assets and we very consciously identified communities of interest—people who share an interest, a background or an activity—as groups that could take on ownership of assets. There are many kinds of community—not just localities, although they are important, but people who share characteristics or activities and wish to work together on them.
I strongly argue that when a group of people do not simply share a locality or an idea but can bring that together in the ownership of an asset, that ownership results in more confidence, capacity and cohesion. It gives a flag to rally round and a sense of ownership, because it is based on what in many cases is actual ownership. Whether we are talking about reviving a local shop, renovating a derelict site or providing a hub for community activities, control of assets can be a key factor in making a community a more attractive place to live and supporting its economic regeneration.
My colleague Dr McLeod has deftly steered the community right to buy through the Parliament—I am not just saying that because she is sitting next to me. We have a comprehensive set of improvements and a fundamental shift in the way in which communities can use the community right to buy. It will now be available in urban and rural contexts, and the new part 3A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 will be instrumental in helping communities to deal with problem land.
No single bill or action that any Government takes will change the pattern overnight. As the land reform review group report emphasised, land reform is a long-term process. However, we firmly believe that the measures will help to lay the foundation for future action on land reform and our vital next steps.
Participation and assets are two key aspects of the bill, and another strand is inequalities. We recognise that inequalities might impact on communities’ ability to use the bill. That has been a focus of concern for the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, and we have been working together on the issue to ensure that we empower the disempowered. We have introduced amendments requiring public bodies to consider inequality and we are targeting locality planning so that all community planning partners can bring their resources to bear on the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
We should be proud that we are putting a significant amount of investment through the programme directly into communities. We are putting an extra £5.6 million in the people and communities fund, which will be part of the overall empowering communities pot, which now stands at £19.4 million of support.
We have listened to everything that has been said. The collaborative approach has allowed the bill to evolve into what will be an extraordinary piece of legislation that touches on practically all aspects of human activity. It will also ensure that our public services are focused on improving what our communities care about and putting them in the driving seat. The broad consensus in favour reflects our shared commitment to working with everyone. Following the enactment of the bill, we will continue that dialogue as we develop draft guidance and proceed with implementation.
I again thank all those who contributed and who will continue to contribute. It gives me enormous pleasure to move the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill be passed.
19:13
I echo the minister’s comments and thank all those who have given an incredible amount of time, energy and support to enable us to scrutinise the bill and, I think, significantly improve on what was initially presented to us. I thank the parliamentary staff for supporting the committees that have been involved. I thank all the witnesses and the community and interest groups that gave evidence and spoke to us during the process. I also mention the work of the land reform review group, which has been really useful in setting a backdrop to the bill.
I thank the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform for her willingness to work with the members of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to improve the bill. I get the sense that the Minister for Local Government and Community Empowerment has made a similar contribution in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which is definitely to be welcomed.
Scottish Labour strongly supports the principle that communities should be given more opportunities to work together to improve people’s lives. We agree with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations that the connection needs to be made between the bill that we will pass today and the Scottish Government’s social justice strategy. The bill is a fundamental opportunity to ensure that we tackle inequalities and that we look at our land and buildings. We strongly support the ambitions behind the bill. We see it as dealing with unfinished business from the land reform legislation that we passed in 2003.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 has enabled rural residents to be in more control of their destiny and to make better use of the natural resources in their communities. It has been transformative legislation. A key part of that success has been the existence of dedicated finance to enable community transfers to take place.
One challenge that we have come back to—this is why our committee went into such detail on the bill—is for communities to work their way through complex legislation. The need to avoid complexity was raised by the Law Society of Scotland. The wording of the regulations and of the guidance that follows will be absolutely crucial in enabling communities to use the legislation that we pass today so that it becomes an opportunity, not an obstacle to buying land.
Support from the Scottish Government in terms of advice and finance will be critical if communities are to be able to make best use of the legislation. We need to have detailed implementation, and the regulations need to be put in place as swiftly as possible.
I welcome the extension of the option of the right to buy to urban communities, although there will be challenges. I particularly thank the community members and councillors from the Calton in Glasgow for their ideas on how we make the bill as effective as it can be. I am also conscious of the needs and aspirations of communities in Edinburgh and the Lothians. As the Law Society points out, we need to ensure that the potential higher cost of land does not frustrate the ambitions of the bill. There are lots of implementation issues for us to think about.
One of the key issues that we have discussed throughout consideration of the bill has been the need for clarity surrounding the provisions on neglected and abandoned land. The debate that we had on that at stage 2 was important in understanding how the Scottish Government will approach the detail.
Today we have also debated amendments on sustainable development and on adding environmental wellbeing criteria. I very much welcome the clarification from the minister about how she sees the legislation being implemented. What is said on the record today and the overwhelming support that there has been for these new key principles will be looked at in the future. That will be important for future decisions by ministers and courts—hopefully more by ministers and less by courts. I was very keen that we tease out those issues today.
In my area, the Lothians, I know of a cinema that has been empty for a decade. Marco Biagi will know the place that I am talking about: the former Odeon cinema. It is a classic example of a building that has become an eyesore on a shopping parade—although it has huge potential—and which will have deteriorated over the years. It was really good to hear from the minister today about the idea concerning buildings in a shopping parade—the idea that a community’s social wellbeing is part of its environmental wellbeing. I very much welcome the commitment that was given this afternoon. I hope that, up and down the country, communities and owners will be thinking about that in more depth. I hope that it will concentrate minds; we need buildings and land to be used to the best benefit of the community as a whole.
New options are being provided today by the passage of the bill, and we should all celebrate that. That is part of the reason why people have been keen to work together. I welcome the collegiate approach that has been taken, both in the committees and from the ministers today. I hope that a more constructive and positive set of relationships between landowners and communities will flow from the legislation. Its very existence will be good across the country, and it will raise people’s aspirations. That is a good thing.
I welcome the possibility for mediation, initiated by ministers, between communities and landowners when that is appropriate, rather than having ranks of lawyers sitting in a room debating the fine detail. Let us get the people to come up with good solutions that will benefit local communities and those who are the stewards of our land and buildings.
I started my speech by welcoming the fact that we have been addressing unfinished business from the 2003 act. Today, the bill itself leaves new unfinished business. Important issues were raised by the land reform review group, including those around compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sale orders, which will now be considered by the Scottish Law Commission.
More work will need to be done. Crucially, we need to build capacity and support in our communities to ensure that we deliver the social justice and regeneration of communities that are at the heart of the bill. We have been doing important work over the past few months, and today has been good.
The new provisions on allotments have been supported by the expert lobbying of the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society, an organisation that does not miss the target when it gets going. The opportunities for sustainable development, community growing and community health and wellbeing that come from gardening and allotments are really important and we need to capture them. New opportunities will also come on the right to buy for football, and we will be able to come back to that.
The bill is about empowerment and opening up new opportunities for our communities, particularly those that are disadvantaged. The bill will create new opportunities, and as MSPs we need to ensure that our local communities will benefit from the changes. Let us pass the bill, move forward together and look forward to the next bit of land reform, which I understand will be coming at us at a rate of knots.
The bill is better than it was when it was introduced. It is stronger for the debate and discussion that we have had. Communities and organisations have helped us to get it together, and I hope that it will be passed at stage 3 tonight.
Before I call Cameron Buchanan, I make the Parliament aware that the Presiding Officer has determined that decision time will take place at 8.15 tonight. That will allow every member who wishes to speak in the debate the opportunity to do so.
19:21
The Parliament’s consideration of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill has been a long and detailed process and many important points have been raised. I, too, thank the clerks and everybody else who has been involved with it, and the committees.
I have always agreed with the principle of enabling communities to have a greater say in local matters and I welcome provisions to facilitate that. However, I am concerned that there are a number of areas in which the bill may still allow central decisions to take precedence over local priorities, and those worries cannot be passed over. Members will be more than aware that many amendments have been considered. I will not have time to analyse each of them, but I think that it is worth touching on some of the most prescient points that have been raised.
Our central aim has always been to ensure that the bill will genuinely delegate decision making so that members of the public can benefit from local flexibility and autonomy and will not be subject to the whims of the Scottish Government. The extent to which that aim will be realised will come down to two factors. The first is the breadth and strength of directions that are imposed on communities and local authorities from central Government, and the second is the extent to which the procedures contain the necessary safeguards to ensure that any community that wishes to become involved in local decision making has a reasonable chance of doing so.
As a case in point, the interaction between part 1 of the bill, on national outcomes, and part 2, on community planning, raises concerns that local priorities may be overshadowed by national decisions. That is particularly true as each community planning partnership must have regard to guidance that is issued by Scottish ministers. I agree with efforts to encourage community participation in the development of local outcomes improvement plans, but I still think that the Parliament and public officials across Scotland would do well to ensure that local priorities are the driving force.
On a similar note, I wish to focus on the bill’s provisions on allotments, because they have raised concerns about local autonomy. In particular, the provisions that require the Scottish Government’s consent for a local authority to change the use of an allotment site could, if they are used in a certain way, obstruct local decision making for national reasons. That is plainly contrary to the principle of facilitating local empowerment. If power is truly to be devolved from the centre, local authorities should be able to decide for themselves whether changing the use of an allotment site is in the local interest, subject of course to reasonable protections.
Will the member clarify the position with regard to local authority decision making about the closure of allotment sites and input by the community and allotment holders into that decision? The bill aims to give more power to communities. Surely allotment holders should have the power to influence the council’s decisions rather than the council making decisions on a whim.
I do not think that it is clear in the bill that that is the case. That is my concern. It has not been specified.
Unfortunately, I think that amendments that were agreed to at stage 3 this evening will restrict local authorities’ freedom to decide which allotments will be offered to tenants. I would be grateful for the minister’s assurance that local agreements are intended to take precedence.
Having said that, I welcome the change in the bill’s provisions regarding the size of allotments. The changes will keep a reference in writing to a standard 250m2 size, as many allotment holders desire, but also recognise the need for local flexibility. The provisions therefore recognise allotment holders’ rights but also allow for flexibility when local authorities and allotment holders can agree, which is the kind of move away from central direction towards local decision making that the bill would have done well to have more of.
Of course, a central part of the debate is ensuring that the bill does what it says and empowers local communities to take part in decision making. We agree with the principle that community bodies should be able to request to participate in local outcomes improvement programmes or make asset transfer requests, but that must be reinforced by proper protections. I stress that I am not making any assumptions, but it is important that communities are protected through a right of review or appeal from being shut out of local decision making for inappropriate reasons.
I note that the Scottish Government responded to my points about allowing a review or appeal when an asset transfer request is agreed but contract negotiations have been broken, by setting up an appeals process where no contract is concluded between a relevant authority and a community transfer body. That, again, is a welcome change in favour of community bodies’ involvement that the Scottish Government would have done well to replicate throughout the bill. However, I expect the Scottish Government to share my commitment to monitor annual reports in the interests of ensuring that all applications are treated appropriately.
You should draw to a close, please.
I hope that members across the chamber will join us in committing to uphold the principles of community empowerment.
19:26
It has been a very interesting afternoon in the chamber, with lots of topics being raised regarding the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. I absolutely believe that this is about community and the communities in which we live.
I had a poignant experience before coming to the chamber this afternoon when I attended the unveiling of the Scottish steelworkers memorial on the Ravenscraig site in North Lanarkshire. I was struck by the fact that it was a community project that brought together the communities of North Lanarkshire on the industrial heritage side and also brought together local schools and the local council, which supported the fundraising for the memorial.
The unveiling was poignant because of where the memorial sits in our community—at the former site of the Ravenscraig steelworks. When I was a schoolchild in that area of North Lanarkshire, I would never have imagined that an Andy Scott sculpture, which will form part of our heritage in the future, would be on that site—indeed, I do not think that Andy Scott would have envisaged any of his sculptures at that time.
To have the memorial on what was the site of the steelworks and beside the regional sports centre, in the heart of what will be a changing and developing community, brought home to me how important it is to bring all our communities together in looking forward to the future. It also brought together for me some of the themes that have come out this afternoon, such as the view that everything changes and nothing is static. The bill is a framework that should take us forward to the as yet unenvisaged community empowerment projects that may come our way.
I was glad that the minister paid tribute to the work of the committees. I joined the Local Government and Regeneration Committee only in November last year, and I have to admit that the bulk of the work on the bill had already been done by that point and a lot of the evidence had already been taken.
I just want to say that I know how the member feels.
We had a wide-ranging debate this afternoon that went from the minutiae of allotment sizes to a philosophical conundrum from my colleague Rob Gibson, who asked what the definition of “environment” is. We have to look to the big scale and blue-sky thinking on the issue as well as at the minutiae of the process. The bill will empower communities through the ownership of land and buildings, strengthen their voices on the decisions that matter to them and put them at the heart of the process.
The extension of the community right to buy across Scotland will help to deliver the Government’s ambitious target of 1 million acres of land being in community ownership by 2020, and the bill will improve the outcomes for communities by involving them in the community planning process and by strengthening partnership working in our local authorities and community environments. I am glad that the Scottish Government is supporting that process with an additional £10 million, which will be provided through the new empowering communities fund, to ensure that people can be more involved in the decisions that affect their lives.
There is much to be commended in the bill, a lot of which has already been debated. The ownership of land and buildings and the strengthening of voices in the decisions that matter to communities are at the heart of what we are doing.
It has been a long afternoon, so I will leave it there. I look forward to the bill being passed later.
19:30
Land reform is, of course, a continuum. Scottish Labour has contributed robustly to that process and will continue to do so beyond today.
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill—which, together, we hope will be passed—is an essential part of that process. At stage 1, I spoke of the keen interest in community ownership from a South Scotland perspective. Communities need and have a right to the levels of support that have been on offer over the years in the Highlands and Islands. Scottish Enterprise should be tasked with a new remit, and the focus of the proposed bodies in relation to wider land reform issues must offer support evenly throughout Scotland. I seek reassurance on that issue from the minister in his closing remarks.
The human rights aspect of the bill and the amendments are significant. In its stage 3 briefing, Community Land Scotland stated:
“Ministers will need to have regard to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights when making certain decisions about community ownership.”
As a member of the Scottish Co-operative Party parliamentary group, I am delighted that the Scottish Government has taken forward the possibilities of the community benefit society co-operative model. What is the minister able to do through Co-operative Development Scotland to support that option?
It should be recognised that urban and rural regeneration is not all about ownership; it can be about good partnership with private landowners and a range of public bodies. I am relieved that the central thrust of the changes that are needed for allotment holding have been accepted. The frustration that is experienced by many who want to grow food but have no access to any land has built up for far too long. Constituents who have approached me after years on council waiting lists and who have seen unused patches of land literally going to waste will have a sense of comfort and draw some optimism from today.
That will also create an opportunity for young people who have been involved in growing food through eco-schools. I am sure that allotment societies across Scotland will see the passing of the bill as a fresh opportunity to connect with young people and provide the chance for them to get growing through starter spaces. Some of us saw those at the Inverleith allotments. I wish all allotment holders and those with allotment aspirations well.
Yesterday, I attended a strategic discussion about the development of community responsibility for Carluke high mill in my South Scotland region. After complex discussions with the landowner, the steering group, which includes Carluke Development Trust and other groups, says that it will
“secure the long term future of The High Mill by returning it to a working state.”
The aim is that the mill will become
“a key centre of cultural, economic and educational activity”,
and the group will ensure that
“it is supported by a sustainable business model”.
That creates opportunities for allotments, local food production and a community cafe around the mill hub.
That is about leasing, not ownership. However, opportunities for ownership are fundamental to the way forward in Scotland. At its Orkney meeting, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee—with the help of Dave Thompson, Sarah Boyack and others—dispelled the myths about the development of land reform. Good landowners have nothing to fear as they develop alongside communities. However, the distribution of land ownership in Scotland is not just and can indisputably hamper community opportunities for job creation and good housing and community vision more broadly.
The passing of the bill will go some way towards correcting some of those distortions. Scottish Labour also eagerly awaits the publication of the land reform bill next week and will make a strong contribution to its progress.
19:34
It is a pleasure to reach this stage in the passage of the bill, given the huge amount of ground that Kevin Stewart’s committee and my committee have covered. I know that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee came into the process somewhat later to deal with part 4 and the land reform aspects, but I will also comment on one or two other matters.
A really important point is that when people saw the bill they thought that great difficulties would be put in the way of simplifying, say, the crofting community right to buy. However, we found that by bringing the issues up at stage 2 it was possible to have the debate, take the evidence and reach a consensus on simplifying the process and thereby making things much easier for crofting communities.
The simplification of the registration processes for communities, crofting or otherwise, is one of the things that I am most proud of; after all, it is daunting for people to have thrust on them over a few weeks the necessity of creating a business plan and registering their right to buy. The process of registration—and re-registration within five years—has now been simplified considerably.
Although extending the right to buy across Scotland is a major aim now, we should recognise that that will throw up many problems, and we should never underestimate the obstacles to achieving a step change in development in so many communities across the country. However, we have laid the groundwork.
I am delighted that, as has been pointed out, we have been able to extend the forms of community bodies to Scottish charitable incorporated organisations and bencoms. That is important because it will allow people to choose a form of body that is suitable to their area.
Having listened to the discussions about community planning partnerships having much more local plans, I have to say that I like the idea of locality plans, which the Local Government and Regeneration Committee dealt with. As a result of that measure, small parts of council areas will be able to focus on matters; I know that Culrain in my constituency would have loved to do that at an earlier stage. Such a move will prepare people for taking action, because they will have thought beforehand about, say, the resources that they will need.
The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee took some time examining the fact that local authorities can act as quite a constraint on the transfer of land to communities, and we found that authorities around the country had varied views about how much they were prepared to do that. Moreover, I note that John Mundell, chief executive of Inverclyde Council, said:
“If we are disposing of assets, we are always required to obtain best value, and that normally means market value, whether we use the district valuer or another mechanism to value assets.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 3 December 2014; c 50.]
We want to change what best value means for communities, because it cannot always mean market value. That is one of the pieces of work that we need to take forward from the bill, but at least the bill has opened the door.
The thing that has cheered me most about the whole process has been how the arguments about human rights have been developed and, in particular, how the Government has embraced the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which guarantees certain rights, such as those to sanitation, food and housing. Applying that covenant to our circumstances could aid many communities in our urban areas, as well as people abroad. After all, the UK signed up to it in 1976, and it is generally accepted as a gold standard. As we have so often found, the European convention on human rights relates to property, but the covenant relates to people.
I have great pleasure in supporting the way in which the bill has been taken forward. I hope that we can get the secondary legislation passed as a priority.
19:39
Let me start with Rob Gibson’s point about best value. The usual question that is asked about any legislation is whether it makes a difference and is seen to do so. There is a redundant school in Shetland that has not been used as a school for a long time. The council in my area sold it to the largest developer—or the one that paid the highest fee—instead of letting a voluntary group use one of the school buildings. It was a canteen, but I will not bore the chamber with what it was all about. If this legislation can enable that community group to buy that asset and use it for their activities, it will have achieved something purposeful and be well worth passing.
I cannot, and neither will I attempt to, go through the legislation in the way the minister did in his opening remarks, but I agree with the tenor of his observations. He described the legislation as “extraordinary”, and the one parliamentary observation that I will make is about when we pass enormously wide catch-all legislation; we used to criticise Westminster Governments of all persuasions for passing the annual “Miscellaneous Scotland Bill”. This bill strikes me not as being miscellaneous, but as being detailed and complex but nonetheless wide-reaching, and I am sure that the Government will want to reflect on the process that allowed it to be that.
My highlight of the day was the allotments debate. It is just as well that Rab McNeil is not still the parliamentary sketch writer for The Scotsman—Alex Fergusson and Sarah Boyack will remember those halcyon days when Rab used to look down on our seats when the Parliament chamber was up the road. I do not think that Cameron Buchanan would have survived his sketch tomorrow morning. Sadly for the minister, the bill would no longer have been the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill; it would have been the “Allotments Bill”, the “Swede Bill” or something like that.
The ministers have made a lot of progress—in my day just one minister would have dealt with a bill such as this. One irony was our getting a briefing last night from Peter Peacock, who used to grace the front bench in past Governments. Peter used to handle such bills—the whole bill, with goodness knows how many sections and paragraphs and so on. He used to provide briefings to the rest of us who subsequently took bills through Parliament. He did that because he paid huge attention to detail and could hold the attention of parties across the chamber. If Marco Biagi follows that approach, he will do well as a minister. The effectiveness of Peter Peacock was down to his ability to produce detailed legislation and make it understandable to us all. His briefing was a masterwork of its kind. One Peter Peacock piece commended the support of all parties for the Government’s amendments at stage 3, subject to “the following comments”: then there were two pages of comments. That was very Peter Peacock, I thought.
I recognise that ministers accepted amendments from across the chamber when considering how best to improve the bill. Hitherto, I had thought that the best example of that, going back through Parliament, was the first cut at land reform legislation, which some—dare I say it?—older colleagues will recall. That bill became very different from the original that was proposed to Parliament. Again, that was because of a point that the minister rightly made: so many groups and interested parties made observations to say, “That isn’t good enough” or “That needs to be altered”. That is seen in how ministers have reflected on the observations. To some extent that was also the case with the amendments on fans that Alison Johnstone persuasively supported in committee and this afternoon.
Alex Fergusson made a point about clarity. I did not necessarily agree with the specific arguments that he pursued, but—Michael Russell is no longer with us, but I think Rob Gibson made the same point—when colleagues from the Government seats are saying that some of the provisions may end up in court, we must be careful that we have got it right, because that is not a good sign for any legislation. I appreciate that it is a small part of the bill, and I am sure that the minister will reflect on that with his good legal counsel, the Lord Advocate and all. It is important that we avoid situations in which we must say, “Good gosh! We’re going to end up testing that in the court.” I am sure that that is not the minister’s intention, and that he will do his best to avoid it. That must be a lesson for drafting any such legislation.
19:43
I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests because I have had a particular interest in community empowerment for a number of years. I was reminded by the person sitting behind me that we had debated this issue in 1988 with reference to a particular community on the south side of Glasgow.
I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee, including the community groups, which told us, not only in formal meetings but in the informal meetings that we had throughout Scotland, about their expectations for community empowerment and their roles in their communities.
I challenge Cameron Buchanan’s comments on decision making: it was not always just about what the Scottish Government was doing, but about what local authorities were doing to many communities. Communities felt disempowered in terms of engagement when local authorities were making decisions. I hope that the bill will take forward rights for communities, so that they are properly consulted, engaged and truly empowered in terms of the decisions that are made in their areas.
I also thank the ministers for their willingness to accept comments that members and others made at stage 2, and in the lead up to stage 3, on what we wanted to see in the bill. In particular, I thank them for their willingness to take on board and to progress suggestions that were made.
The test of any legislation that is passed by Parliament is the impact that it has on communities throughout Scotland. There is an expectation that, once enacted, the bill will empower communities that have so far failed in their attempts to engage meaningfully in shaping the delivery of services that they themselves have identified.
One such area is the asset transfer debate—I am directly involved in community asset transfer negotiations with a local authority. When working with local authorities and other public agencies, we must ask them to consider what they mean by community asset transfers. I think that it was Rob Gibson who mentioned best value. I do not look at best value in economic terms; I look at what best value is for communities and what asset transfers can deliver in terms of economic and social impacts. Many communities have good ideas and visions for what they can deliver. Unfortunately, as Rob Gibson highlighted, many public sector agencies and local authorities see asset transfer as having only monetary value. We must shape and change the attitude that best value is about money; rather, it is about what can be delivered, how it is delivered and who is delivering it.
It is clear that many communities throughout Scotland want to engage in the asset transfer process, take forward their own projects and deliver services in those communities. However, at present, many of them are being held back by the view of local authorities that they know what is best for those areas.
The bill is about changing society. I hope that, after almost 40 years of talking about community engagement, with this legislation we will see genuine community empowerment to allow people to take forward their ideas and to engage meaningfully in shaping their future.
19:48
When we debated the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 on 3 February this year, I pointed out that the unifying theme in legislation is trust: trust that communities all over Scotland know what is best for themselves and have the desire and ability to make their ambitions reality; trust that the bill will give them a range of tools to make their desires reality; and trust that our public services will rise to meet the opportunities that the bill presents them with to empower the communities that they serve. The levels of input and engagement that we, as parliamentarians, have received from communities across Scotland as we have considered and amended the bill vindicates that view.
The 16th century philosopher and statesman, Sir Francis Bacon, is reputed to have coined that well-known expression, “Knowledge is power.” In this case, knowledge is empowerment. Therefore, a special duty falls on the Scottish Government, local government, and other public bodies to empower communities across Scotland by informing them about the legislation and the powers that it provides. Whether it is about the ability to assume control of local community assets, such as community halls or leisure venues, or about requests from local groups to participate in delivery of public services in order to achieve an outcome, communities across Scotland can only take full advantage of the new powers if they know about them and have the necessary support to use them effectively. I call on all members to promote the value of the legislation to our constituents, and to encourage them to be active in community-based organisations so that they can empower themselves and their communities.
As the convener of the committee that scrutinised the lion’s share of the bill at stage 1, I know well the appetite that exists in communities across Scotland to be empowered with the tools that allow them to help themselves. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, which we have finalised this evening, will provide the foundations for a new framework of empowerment across Scotland. Crucially, it will be a framework of empowerment that will be designed and delivered by ordinary folk who live and work in their communities. It will help to free their ambitions from the often well-intentioned but stiflingly dead hand of officialdom and bureaucracy.
Since the bill was introduced in Parliament in June 2014, Scotland has undertaken a remarkable journey of civic and community empowerment. The extraordinary level of public engagement and participation in the independence referendum, which carried through to the recent UK general election, provided the perfect platform from which to launch the bill. However, as with so many things in this life, the bill is not the end of a process, nor is it a means to an end. We should rather see it for what it is: a new staging post on the journey of empowerment that so many communities across Scotland are already embarked on.
If used to their fullest, the powers in the bill can provide the confidence and impetus that our communities need to be able to take their future wellbeing into their own hands. That does not necessarily mean that the task will always be easy—most worth-while pursuits in life are not—but I trust that it is a challenge that folk all across Scotland are more than ready to meet.
I thank again the thousands of ordinary people from across the length and breadth of Scotland who engaged with the Local Government and Regeneration Committee on the bill. Their vital contribution has helped to shape the bill in ways that will benefit generations of Scots far into the future.
I truly believe that the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill will shift the balance of empowerment away from the agencies of the state towards ordinary people and the communities in which they live. Communities across Scotland need to feel as though they are in a partnership of equals with the agencies that provide them with the services that they need. Too often in the past, that has not been the case. The bill will go far towards redressing the balance. For that reason, I look forward to our voting the bill into law at decision time this evening.
19:52
First, I congratulate and say well done to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. I absolutely associate myself with all John Wilson’s comments. I would have liked what he said to have been one bit of my speech.
I want to focus on something a bit different. We need to move forward with the co-operation that we have seen in the passing of the bill. The bill will be no panacea for the unnecessary austerity that is now being imposed on public services across Scotland. We need to address that, but that is for another day.
I want to talk about how we will address local government finance in future. I welcomed it when the minister set up the commission on local tax reform. I sat on the commission for a period of time and I look forward to its conclusions. All political parties, including mine and that of the Government, need to give an absolute commitment that we will put party politics to one side so that we can find a solution to the problem of local government finance. If we try to outbid each other using council tax freezes, we will doom local government to another five-year freeze that will have a negative impact on the ability of local authorities to achieve sustainable long-term finance, especially if one party is frightened to move because the other one will make major political capital out of it or make it into an election issue. We have seen co-operation in the making of the bill and the parties need to give the same commitment to working together in the chamber to find a long-term and sustainable approach to local government finance.
On community planning, regardless of whether we are able to find a long-term sustainable approach to local government finance, the Christie report has highlighted the fact that we cannot continue to do things the way we did them in the past. We need to find new ways of working and think about a more preventative agenda. I believe that the bill and the moves that have been made within it to ensure that community planning is able to genuinely involve and engage with local communities will move that agenda forward.
We need to look at structures. For example, I absolutely support the health and social care partnerships. Only time will tell whether that is the end of the road or whether we want to bring the organisations together and govern them differently, but I believe that this bill is the next step with regard to community planning partners—the health service, local authorities and the voluntary sector. There must be a greater role for the third sector. I am a believer that community planning is absolutely the correct way to go forward. It is also right that people and communities are able to determine their local priorities and where local resources should be spent. The bill takes us in that direction.
I hope that, across Scotland, political parties and local government will see this bill as an opportunity to begin to work together in the interests of our communities and that parties in this Parliament can come together successfully to work together to tackle the difficult issues such as the future of local government funding.
19:57
We are almost at the culmination of a long process that, as we heard, has involved several parliamentary committees and a vast array of witnesses, stakeholders, civil servants, parliamentary staff and others. Whatever our overall views on this weighty piece of legislation, they should all be warmly thanked, and I am delighted to do so from these benches.
As the minister said in opening this debate, there are not many differences across the chamber on the overall aspirations of the bill, but there are differences on matters of detail. We cannot pretend that they do not exist, despite the excellent spirit and, sometimes, humour that have marked today’s stage 3 process.
I dearly wish that the Government had differentiated between the right to buy in urban Scotland and in rural Scotland because, although I can see situations in an urban context that would absolutely justify the right to buy without a willing seller, I can also see that that could have significant unintended consequences when translated into a rural context. Several witnesses at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee echoed the desirability of making that differentiation, as did the Law Society of Scotland, and I think that the bill is poorer for its absence.
Marco Biagi also said during the discussion of amendments that everything in the bill is about empowering communities, and so it should be. However, as members will have picked up from this afternoon’s debate, we on these benches believe that, in seeking to empower communities, ministers are taking too much power to themselves. We do not agree that outcomes should be determined rather than prescribed by regulation; we do not agree that the identifying of local priorities by community planning partnerships should be decreed by ministers; and we do not agree that extending the definition of land that is eligible for a compulsory right to buy by a community is in any way helpful in delivering a clear, concise and easily understood way forward. This party is not against community ownership—far from it. However, the land that is eligible for takeover by any community under any circumstances should surely be clearly defined in law and not subject to the opinion of any individual, agency or—dare I say it—politician.
I genuinely believe that the Scottish Government is genuine in its belief that it is going about the business of community empowerment in the right way with this bill, and there is much that is entirely commendable in it. I really—and equally genuinely—wish that we could give it our whole-hearted support. However, Tavish Scott made valid points about the breadth of the bill and its clarity in some aspects, and those two issues are at the very core of the reservations that we hold.
Not for the first time in this Parliament I hope that our reservations may prove to be unfounded, but I fear that they will not be. For the reasons that I have tried to outline in the brief space of time that is available to me, and despite the many positive aspects of the bill, we will abstain tonight at decision time.
20:00
It has been a long day and a tiring day but, I hope, a very worthwhile one. For those of us who believe whole-heartedly in devolution and in the principles of subsidiarity and sharing power, the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill is a very significant step indeed. I add my voice to those of the many members this evening who have thanked all the contributors who helped us reach this point.
To my mind, the most important issue that was flagged up in evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee from the outset, and which was unanimously reflected in the committee’s deliberations, was the argument that the bill should not only seek to increase participation from the community in decision making but, perhaps more important, it should redistribute influence on decision making more equally across diverse communities. That argument was put most forcefully by contributors from the voluntary sector, including Oxfam, the Poverty Alliance, Barnardo’s and many more such organisations, and I thank each of them for their persuasive input into this piece of legislation.
The worry was expressed that the passing of the bill would simply cede more power to those who are already accustomed to participating in local decision making. One of the most important amendments agreed to, therefore, was on legislative recognition that, when the national outcomes framework is being laid down, socioeconomic levels within individual communities will be taken into account.
The Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights—CRER—is one of the many aforementioned organisations that welcomed the bill’s ambition to reduce inequalities of outcome arising from socioeconomic disadvantage. However, it felt strongly that there should also be a focus on reducing inequalities of outcome that arise from race discrimination. I did not wish to introduce new material at stage 3, particularly on such a consensual bill—I am sure that everyone is relieved to hear that there was not an extra amendment this afternoon—so I did not lodge that amendment.
However, I would welcome, even at this late stage, any reassurance that the minister can offer in winding up that he recognises that black and minority ethnic communities may not be in the best position to take advantage of the provisions in the bill and that the Scottish Government will take steps to address those barriers to community participation that are created by prejudice and discrimination.
I will pick out just a couple of the many important subjects in the bill that were covered today. Empowering communities means, in essence, that we are giving citizens the opportunity to influence decisions that matter to them. That is why we were happy to back the football supporters’ right-to-buy amendment, proposed by Alison Johnstone. We are all very aware of the parlous state of many Scottish football clubs and of the less than altruistic intentions of some owners. Sports clubs in general play a crucial role in communities all over Scotland. Allowing those who care the most about the clubs to make decisions on the clubs’ future will only further enrich that important aspect of society. We were particularly pleased to see those amendments agreed to without division at stage 2. Having now conceded that the minister would prefer to consult further and bring back those proposals by regulation or subordinate legislation, I hope that the ministers will appreciate our on-going anxiety that the Government fulfils that commitment in the shortest timescale possible.
I turn to the subject of allotments—Rab McNeil notwithstanding. Despite the minister’s good intentions, there was a danger at one point that, instead of improving prospects for Scotland’s many allotment holders and giving them some sort of statutory protection, we would vote down the entire section. It is to the credit of the minister, of the committee and, in particular, of the members of the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society that the bill has now been amended to address the real demand for access to small plots of land that clearly exists across Scotland.
As with many aspects of the bill, the real test now lies ahead, when we put the law into practice. Allotments do not just offer an opportunity for those who wish to enjoy the benefits of gardening or working outdoors. They contribute to public policy on food, social justice, health and wellbeing, reducing carbon emissions and enhancing the natural environment. For example, will the bill deliver more allotments, with fewer people waiting and more people with a plot of their own? That is when we will really see the extent to which we have empowered our communities.
I have one final point. This has been a collaborative and consensual process, as many members have remarked in their closing speeches, and I believe that the bill is all the better for that. I thank the ministers for their role in such a co-operative and constructive operation, but I particularly want to thank the members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. It is interesting that there is no Government majority on the committee and the result has not been opportunism or oppositional politics from the non-governmental majority, but mature, respectful and rational discussion. All members have sought to reach agreement rather than force their views on others. For those who recollect Parliament before 2011, it was a reminder of how we used to achieve a balance between the power of the Executive and the legislature.
There have been occasional disappointments. We did not pass the European Charter of Local Self-Government, despite the opportunity that it offered to display our commitment to subsidiarity. I think that many of us welcomed the reminder during the discussion around that that the concordat is now dead and buried. It was slightly worrying that, in a choice between the council tax freeze and subsidiarity, the freeze seems to have won. I echo the point that was raised by my colleague Alex Rowley that, if we are going to take a consensual approach, local government finance offers an opportunity to us all.
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill is a very consensual, well-intentioned and empowering bill. It is now up to all of us to put those powers into action—let us practise the devolution that we preach.
20:06
I want to identify a problem with the bill. I know that this is a pretty late stage to do that, given that this is the winding-up speech at stage 3, but the problem is that if somebody comes to us, as people have been doing for some time, and asks us to sum up the bill in a sentence, it is pretty hard to do. This is a bill that has—as has been identified—a common thread of empowering communities through giving them a greater say in decision-making and in forms of direct ownership, but it is very hard to simply summarise the broad range of ways that it seeks to embody that principle.
The bill is really important because communities have different priorities. There is no one solution, there is no catch-all and there is no magic wand. In touring Scotland since I became the minster responsible for local government, I have seen examples of communities doing very different things. In some cases, they identify childcare as the issue and create a nursery—for example, at the Cassiltoun Stables nursery in Castlemilk. There is regeneration in Govanhill and Craigmillar and there are arts facilities in Kilmarnock, Elgin, and Galashiels, where the communities are working through such activities not just for the sake of the arts but because they provide opportunities for young people to gain skills and confidence. There is the community centre in Merkinch and others in Irvine and Alloa that offer everything, including a reptile fanciers club that I had the great pleasure of visiting during my last visit. There is the Comas shop in Dumbiedykes and the Crags community sports centre, and I have high hopes that our neighbourhood here around the Parliament will see some progress for the building that Sarah Boyack mentioned.
In a couple of months, I am going to Campbeltown to see its community-owned cinema and airport. An airport! Is that not proof that if communities have ambition, the sky is literally the limit?
Members: Oh!
I could not let Alison Johnstone be the only member to deliver a pun today, could I? I can actually speak now, which is an improvement.
In touring Scotland, I have seen a few groups that have imparted to me the importance of some of the points that have been made here—what Rob Gibson identified as that first step, when people go from being a group of volunteers or a group of people with an interest and an idea and take it to the next level. That really is an important step and one that we have to make sure is properly supported as we implement the legislation.
The bill, as has been highlighted, took no fewer than three ministers to bring home. There are now 11 parts to the bill, and looking at the football team’s-worth of substantive parts—I promise that there will be no more puns after this—in this debate, three of them seemed to stay on the bench.
We had no conversations in great detail about forestry, the common good or local non-domestic rates, which are all areas in which the bill includes important provisions to further community empowerment—[Interruption.]
One moment, minister. I ask members who are coming into the chamber to do so quietly and to stop talking, please, and to let the minister get on with his speech.
Will the minister give way at this point?
Minister, will you give way?
To Mr Stewart? Always.
Will the minister agree that a number of the areas that he mentioned have not come up today because we dealt with them at earlier stages? For example, on forestry, concerns from the Scottish Woodlot Association were dealt with very early. Again, that comes back to the consensus that existed across the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the other committees.
Indeed—I was just about to come on to that point in responding to the question that Tavish Scott raised about scrutiny. We have heard from other front-bench members that the bill is a shining example of how the Parliament’s committees looked in great detail at a wide range of issues and produced positive recommendations that the Government was happy to take on board.
There is a wide range of issues running through the bill, and I will respond to some of the areas that have been highlighted. On land reform, Claudia Beamish raised the issue of support. As with all sections of the bill, the need to ensure that people have the means to come forward and take advantage of the provisions is critical.
Asset transfer and its interaction with best value came up on several occasions in the debate. We must recognise that best value was conceived as something that is about more than just market value, so it is important that everybody takes that on board.
Cameron Buchanan made a point about allotments and ministerial control. The ministerial consent for change of use for allotments has existed since the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, so it has a pedigree. Members will pardon me for being a younger member, but I believe that there was a Conservative Government at that time, although I note that Mr Buchanan is perhaps more of a Thatcher man than a Heath man with regard to the past records of those Governments. The provision is a long-established one that we were asked by stakeholders to include.
We have touched on the extent to which we took on board ideas from across Parliament. The bill includes provisions on locality planning; on assistance with participation, which Alex Rowley raised; on allotments, which Ken Macintosh highlighted; and on participation requests for joint authorities, which Tavish Scott raised with us.
From Cameron Buchanan—despite my little disagreement with him on CPPs—we have taken on board issues to do with appeals. From John Wilson we have taken on board issues relating to reporting deadlines and ALEOs, and to unconstituted but still representative groups. From Michael Russell, we have taken suggestions regarding appeals on asset transfer; from Alison Johnstone, suggestions on football; and on land reform, we have taken on board suggestions from Sarah Boyack, Claudia Beamish and Alex Fergusson.
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill is one that every member of the Parliament can feel part of, and that many MSPs can look at it and say, “I made this.”
We also learned during the debate that Alison Johnstone’s football puns are terrible—her scriptwriter should get a red card, as should mine. We have learned that Alex Fergusson can sometimes—believe it or not—stand up for tenants, which he happily portrayed as being the result of a change of heart.
We learned during the passage of the sections on allotments that just about everybody—the Opposition spokespeople, the official in charge and the people coming before the committees—seems to be an allotment holder. Crazes have clearly moved on from Cabbage Patch Kids to cabbage patches for real.
Members: Oh!
I am not going to do any more puns. [Applause.] The priority and need of this community here is, first, for me to stop telling bad jokes and, secondly, for me to wind up the debate.
If there is a conclusion to the debate, it is that much of what we are trying to codify in the bill is already happening. There are trailblazers who are making superhuman efforts to achieve stronger and more empowered communities. However, it should not require someone to be superhuman to achieve that, which is why we want to make it just a little bit easier in a wide range of areas for people to be that active community and to step forward, recognising that regeneration is done by communities and not to communities. We want to ensure that we empower the disempowered people across this country and create the healthy and vibrant democracy and society that all of us in Parliament want.
That concludes the debate and the puns on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.