Chamber and committees

On that point about data, I noticed that Paul Bradley referenced methodology in his submission. I brought up the point with the Deputy First Minister—it seems like ages ago, now—that I did not have any sense that methodologies were being used. We have not really even begun to consider that whole area. I am not saying that there is a right or wrong way, but that is incredibly important when it comes to data. Furthermore, the lack of data is just as important as the data that we have.

Good morning, and thank you for attending. I have a couple of brief questions.

First, I will take things back to the top. We discussed earlier the legislation requiring you to have regard to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. My general question, which sets aside some of the issues with the NPF that we have covered, is whether, in a perfect world, it would be beneficial to have something tighter than merely “having regard to” the national performance framework, along with a sexier name, clearer linkages and so on. These are national missions, so would that be beneficial? In other words, does the concept of “having regard to” allow agencies some wriggle room?

Before you come in, Tim, you referenced—I am quoting loosely—raising our game with regard to the climate emergency. What I am trying to get at is this. I fully accept your comment that, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority, so if we had fewer national priorities but they were utterly compelling—climate change, for example—could it be advantageous to have something tighter than merely the duty to have regard to them?

In common with other members, I thank my friend and colleague Fiona Hyslop for bringing the debate to Parliament and for paying such a fitting tribute that managed to fit in all aspects of the subject, despite it being such an all-encompassing motion.

I hope that my short contribution brings some further insights, including the need for imagination and ambition for the future as we address the economic needs of Scotland today.

When it was first built, the Union canal was a tribute to the ingenuity and innovation of the designers and the builders of the day. Thirty-one and a half miles long and Scotland’s only contour canal, it was known locally at the time as “the mathematical river”, for good reason. It followed that 240-foot contour throughout its length, by way of 62 fixed bridges. That was a remarkable innovation, which allowed traffic to flow at speed and rendered locks unnecessary. The importance of that cannot be overestimated. What would be a considerable feat of engineering today was utterly remarkable and inspiring all those years ago.

The canal meanders through my constituency of Falkirk East—I must lay claim to the fact that it was Burke who worked on the canal at Maddiston in Falkirk East—from Westquarter in the west, traversing Polmont, running on towards the east side near Muiravonside and eventually heading across the remarkable Avon aqueduct and onwards to Edinburgh. Much of that has been covered today.

Not only was the canal a source of employment for many people in communities that are now part of Falkirk East, it smoothed supply chains, created spin-off enterprises and supported community development. It is remarkable to think that such a huge infrastructure development, with its innovative design built around the ambition to improve and facilitate trade, remains a great symbol of Scotland’s imagination and skills. That ingenuity and innovation are reflected today in the wonderful year-long programme of events that has already been mentioned.

We should aspire to be similarly imaginative about the future. I would like Falkirk East, and indeed the Forth valley, to become the hub for new investment aimed at sustainable international trade. We must set ourselves the task of emulating the foresight and drive that were so evident in the design and building of the canal 200 years ago.

I pay tribute to and thank the many people involved, in particular the leadership and board of Scottish Canals. Given my debate last week on the subject of women in business, it is inspiring to note that such an innovative programme is overseen by a board on which four of the six members are female, with Maureen Campbell as chair and Catherine Topley as chief executive.

Much of the debate has focused on the history of the canal and on the many celebration events. Here is my plea: the greatest tribute that we can pay to all those who have been involved from the time when the canal was merely an idea through to today is to mobilise such imagination, knowledge and skills once more in a major and ambitious programme to better engage Scotland with the wider world.

You see the primary role of the community as being to generate ideas. That leads me on to my next question, which is probably for you again, and for Martin Avila. There is obviously a great deal of sympathy in Government and the committee with regard to such community-led initiatives; indeed, I would say that it is endemic. However, what if we look at it from the other side and think about risk? If we are talking about Government funding for some kind of partnership or initiative, there will be a really quite stringent due diligence process with regard to not just the funding side of things, but people’s experience in operating in such a market and the risk in that respect. We have seen community-based trusts come and go for exactly the reason that was highlighted earlier: people come in and then lose interest.

I would appreciate it if we could hear your reflections on how we strike the right balance between social and capital incentives, but also—this takes us back to the backdrop that money is not infinite—how we make an accurate assessment of risk.

I think that we all agree on that. Are you aware of data being collected? You have given the example of institutions’ properties lying empty. That is an example of where we might gather data. Are you aware of anyone collecting data that adds weight to the opinions?

It would be useful to have that data set for Scotland, as well.

Good morning, everybody. My first question is for Pauline Smith. We have heard in other evidence sessions about an oversupply of retail premises. You have talked very positively about Huntly Development Trust with regard to community-empowered creativity, but what role do you see for development trusts and social enterprises in repurposing properties? You have also talked about the complexity of the legal aspects. That will be one barrier, but I suspect that there will be others. Can you say something about those two areas?

Can I have some reflections from Allison Orr and Martin Avila about the risks that are associated with development trusts? I emphasise that they are a good idea, but I want to explore that a wee bit.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. First, I apologise for not being able to give your office advance notice of this point of order, which I would have liked to do.

Earlier today, in the debate on supporting carers, I commented that Robert Kilgour, a well-known Tory donor, made contributions to the Tory party. Having now consulted the Electoral Commission website, I wish to apologise for underreporting the scale of the donations, so I would like to correct the record.

As an individual, Mr Kilgour has made 15 donations either to the Tory party or to Scottish Business Supports the Union, totalling £76,127.76. In addition, via his company, Dow Investments, he has made 37 regular donations to the Tory party, totalling £222,651. His most recent think tank, the British Civic Institute, has not yet registered with the Electoral Commission but, when it does, I will ensure that I make accurate figures available.