Chamber and committees

Amendment 34 is in the name of Sarah Boyack, but she is away on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association business, so I am delighted to speak on her behalf.

Amendment 34 would require ministers to report regularly on the steps that they were taking to promote co-operatives and support co-operative development. It asks for clarity on the practical resources, including financial support, that have been made available and on how effective those measures have been. The amendment covers community-owned and democratic businesses to ensure that the models of ownership and control keep wealth rooted locally, which is critical, given that so much of Scotland’s wealth leaks out of the country due to overseas ownership.

Co-operatives are a core part of the community wealth building approach. Amendment 34 would ensure that their promotion was not just incidental but actively monitored, reported on and taken seriously as part of delivering the bill’s aims.

I commend amendment 34 to the Parliament.

I will speak to amendments 13 and 17, which are in my name. They would both insert “co-operative financial institutions” into the measures that are associated with the ministerial statement and community wealth building action plans.

Amendment 13 would require Scottish ministers to set out how they will promote or support co-operative financial institutions when they set out the measures that they are taking or intend to take to support community wealth building.

Amendment 17 would ensure that promoting or supporting co-operative financial institutions is included in the list of measures that community wealth building partnerships may include in their community wealth building action plans.

Those amendments will act to support the valuable contribution that co-operative financial institutions, such as credit unions, make to our local communities and economies. I therefore commend the amendments to the Parliament and invite all members to support them.

The Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill is not just a means of trading a slogan; it represents a recognition that Scotland’s wealth is based in the local communities that we live in. It is often forgotten that 1.2 million jobs in Scotland—more than half of all private sector employment—are created and sustained by small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the foundations on which this country’s prosperity depends. Combined with the powers of the state, both local and national, they shape our lives, building up wealth in our communities and allowing each next new generation to be richer than the last.

Yet, for far too long, our policy in Scotland has relentlessly focused on a laissez-faire dependence on the initiative and enterprise of foreign corporations, and foreign ownership and investment from multinationals, rather than building up our home-grown talent and enterprise potential. That is how Scotland has become one of the most foreign-owned economies in the world. As a result, it has experienced a net outflow of wealth in every year since records began. That is not a trivial sum. We are talking about more than a quarter of a trillion pounds leaving Scotland between 1998 and the latest figures in 2021. That is the result of decades of people actively choosing the multinational rather than the local.

We can go back to the Toothill report of 1962, which determined that Scotland’s heavy industrial base was beyond reform and that, as a nation, we had to depend on external investment, primarily from the United States, into our light industries. We seem not to have shaken that dependence ever since. That has come at tremendous cost to our prosperity. Scotland is one of the most foreign-owned countries in the world and one of only a handful of such countries that are both rich and developed but not microstates or outright tax havens.

Gross national income provides a useful indicator for us. The Government has been undertaking experimental statistics, although I note that it has not done so since 2021. GNI provides a measure of the country’s total national income, including all the income earned by its residents and businesses both at home and abroad. It contrasts with gross domestic product—GDP—which measures the income of anyone within a country’s boundaries, regardless of who produces it. It is a useful indicator, at a macro level, of community wealth building. GNI tends to be based on ownership, whereas GDP is based simply on location. If we compare GDP with GNI in the latest statistics from 2021, we can see that £36.5 billion was extracted from Scotland in that year, largely in the form of profits and dividends to foreign-owned companies and shareholders, while only £26.4 billion flowed into Scotland, largely as foreign investment income. That represents a net outflow of £10.1 billion. It is important to note that that is 5.5 per cent of GDP, which is greater than the average of any World Bank income group, including the world’s least developed and most heavily indebted nations.

Only five polities in the World Bank’s GNI database are richer in GNI per capita than Scotland while having a higher rate of outward economic flow: San Marino, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. We need to address that structural problem and properly interrogate the nature of foreign direct investment. That is why we have pushed the Government through amendments to the bill. The Government does not properly scrutinise the nature of foreign direct investment projects to ensure that they actually add net value to the Scottish economy.

I admit that, like many of my Labour colleagues, I was sceptical about the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill as introduced—it was a mouse of a bill, as Richard Leonard referred to it. I was worried that it would create lots of paperwork for underresourced local authorities, that it would be about just an empty slogan and that the opportunity to meaningfully create community wealth building would be lost. We are perhaps still sceptical in some respects, but I am pleased that we have been able to work constructively with the Government and colleagues from across the chamber to fashion a stronger bill that will genuinely support community wealth building activities—to give the mouse some teeth, I suppose.

We have worked to achieve the inclusion of community-owned financial institutions such as credit unions in the Government’s community wealth building strategic statement and as an option in the action plans. The Scottish Government has committed to procurement reform and community empowerment reviews—both of which are sorely needed—in the next session of the Parliament.

I would have liked there to be more measures supporting co-operatives and for there to be greater scope in the organisations that will be included under the action plans. I note the concerns that have been raised about the surreptitious rundown of Co-operative Development Scotland, and I was disappointed that the Government resisted the amendments in the name of my colleague Richard Leonard. However, we recognise that the bill is a useful starting point, and it will be up to the next Parliament to ensure that its promise truly comes to fruition.

We need to ensure that councils and public bodies are properly resourced so that community wealth building plans turn into real community wealth building activity. We must also ensure that, when procurement processes are reviewed in relation to how they keep to community wealth building goals, we then act accordingly and make the changes that will be required to use public purchasing power to drive wealth building in Scotland.

The prize of a Scotland in which wealth-generating activities circulate within our communities is one that is worth striving towards. I hope that we will be able to consider the bill as the beginning, not the end, of our community wealth building journey.

16:27

Amendment 34 is in the name of Sarah Boyack, but she is away on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association business, so I am delighted to speak on her behalf.

Amendment 34 would require ministers to report regularly on the steps that they were taking to promote co-operatives and support co-operative development. It asks for clarity on the practical resources, including financial support, that have been made available and on how effective those measures have been. The amendment covers community-owned and democratic businesses to ensure that the models of ownership and control keep wealth rooted locally, which is critical, given that so much of Scotland’s wealth leaks out of the country due to overseas ownership.

Co-operatives are a core part of the community wealth building approach. Amendment 34 would ensure that their promotion was not just incidental but actively monitored, reported on and taken seriously as part of delivering the bill’s aims.

I commend amendment 34 to the Parliament.

That connection with Stan Laurel shows the closeness between Ruglonians and Glaswegians. Stan Laurel cut his teeth on the boards of the Britannia Panopticon music hall in Glasgow’s Trongate. From the original construction of Glasgow cathedral to the shared relationship between our transport systems, or even the 21-year experiment that Rutherglen had as part of Glasgow District Council, there is an indelible link between the city of Glasgow and Rutherglen. Long may that flourish, particularly through projects such as the Clyde gateway.

This has been an interesting debate and the speeches that we have heard today have made the rationale for the bill clear. On a point of historical interest, it feels to me as if we have imperceptibly shifted and are going back to the era of the barber surgeon and of insufficient regulation. It is important to note that the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh was originally called the Edinburgh Guild of Barbers and Surgeons. We moved away from that sort of back-street practice for good reason, but if we do not recognise the shifts in medical and clinical trends, we are in danger of a slippage in patient and public safety.

That is why the legislation is welcome. One of the basic rules of good governance is that, when society changes, our laws and regulations must be kept up to date to reflect that. I think that everyone here today recognises that the world of non-surgical cosmetic procedures has been transformed. Something that was once the realm of celebrities and the super-rich, or that we might watch on the Discovery channel, is increasingly ubiquitous in society. We see discounted Botox, chemical peels and other non-surgical cosmetic procedures and it seems that there is a story almost every other week about an alcohol-fuelled Botox party or a non-surgical cosmetic procedure gone wrong. We have heard some horror stories in speeches today and the committee even heard of hotel rooms and garden sheds being used as places where people could go to have such procedures. That worrying situation is in desperate need of state regulation.

We must be clear that it is not for Parliament to determine a person’s choice about how they wish to present themselves to the world, but it is imperative that any new and emerging industry has the necessary protections and regulations in place to ensure public safety. We know that many providers keep to high standards but also know that many, sadly, do not. That is the point of having a regulatory floor. Just as we require the highest standards in the national health service, from clinicians in private practice and from our factories and service industries, the safety of patients, consumers and staff must always be maintained. That is why Labour supports the bill in principle.

I do. That is an area that we want to develop further in the next stages of the bill.

It is also important to demonstrate best practice for people who might want to enter the industry and develop their skills. We want to promote best practice and discourage unhelpful practice. That cycle should drive innovation. We should not be an enemy of progress; we should just try to guide it towards the public good. Regulation should help to level the playing field between those who, on one hand, choose to cut corners on patient and staff safety in order to maximise profit and those who, on the other hand, are already investing in training and health and safety in order to develop a thriving business that is patient-centric and ethical in nature.

Creating that level playing field is key so that customers have confidence that they are guaranteed to get good-quality treatment and so that practitioners are given the opportunity to grow through training opportunities and to access appropriate facilities that, rather than being prohibitively expensive, could be developed in a co-operative way. We should look to drive that, because Scotland’s reputation for safety in patient care is paramount.

That does not mean that Labour believes that the bill is perfect. We share concerns about the need to ensure that the necessary regulations are accompanied by proper support and guidance for practitioners, who will need to develop their practice to meet the new standards. We heard some concerns raised about that in the committee. We do not want people to lose their livelihoods as a result of this; we want to guide them towards the standards that will help them to reach their potential. The purpose of the bill should therefore not be to remove from the industry those who lack certain qualifications if they are willing to learn and to improve their practice. This should be an opportunity to improve the general common weal rather than just reduce consumer choice.

Today, we have heard from across the Parliament about why non-cosmetic surgery needs to be brought under regulations. Although it is a relatively new industry, it is expanding rapidly, and it is only right that we intervene via legislation to create the necessary changes and improvements that will let it thrive in a manner that is conducive to public and patient safety.

The bill will not solve everything. Much is happening in Scotland that is already illegal. However, without proper enforcement, many surgical abuses will continue. As it stands, there are very real concerns about how support will be given to the industry to meet the new standards. That is a real concern that we need to look at more.

However, it is clear that regulation is needed now so that patients can be assured of their safety, so that staff are safe and well trained, and so that Scottish practitioners can lead the world by developing best practice.

For all those reasons, Labour is happy to support the bill.

16:47

There are so many projects to discuss, but one that particularly springs to mind in the discussion about skills—and heritage skills in particular—is the restoration of the Overtoun park bandstand, which was destroyed in 2024. It is welcome that funding is being committed to restore it, but it shows the critical nature of Scotland’s skills in that area of conservation. In particular, the recent loss of Ballantine Castings shows the importance of architectural ironwork skills. I hope that that can be brought to bear in the restoration of Rutherglen’s Overtoun park bandstand in the coming months.

The First Minister will be aware that the Centre for Contemporary Arts in Glasgow announced that it was going into liquidation this week, leading to the loss of 39 jobs directly. Tenants and freelancers will also be affected.

Creative Scotland, the public body that owns the building—it has done so for the past half century; the CCA has been a fixture in the Glasgow arts scene—has failed to intervene in the situation, which does not square with the Government’s fair work commitments on consultation, dignity at work and worker protection.

I ask the First Minister to intervene directly with Creative Scotland and order it to set up a successor organisation to re-employ those workers and reopen that critical cultural organisation in the heart of Glasgow—a city that has already suffered greatly, and continues to suffer, from the fire at the Glasgow School of Art and its aftermath, and from wider issues of regeneration on Sauchiehall Street. I hope that he will commit to doing so.

I do. That is an area that we want to develop further in the next stages of the bill.

It is also important to demonstrate best practice for people who might want to enter the industry and develop their skills. We want to promote best practice and discourage unhelpful practice. That cycle should drive innovation. We should not be an enemy of progress; we should just try to guide it towards the public good. Regulation should help to level the playing field between those who, on one hand, choose to cut corners on patient and staff safety in order to maximise profit and those who, on the other hand, are already investing in training and health and safety in order to develop a thriving business that is patient-centric and ethical in nature.

Creating that level playing field is key so that customers have confidence that they are guaranteed to get good-quality treatment and so that practitioners are given the opportunity to grow through training opportunities and to access appropriate facilities that, rather than being prohibitively expensive, could be developed in a co-operative way. We should look to drive that, because Scotland’s reputation for safety in patient care is paramount.

That does not mean that Labour believes that the bill is perfect. We share concerns about the need to ensure that the necessary regulations are accompanied by proper support and guidance for practitioners, who will need to develop their practice to meet the new standards. We heard some concerns raised about that in the committee. We do not want people to lose their livelihoods as a result of this; we want to guide them towards the standards that will help them to reach their potential. The purpose of the bill should therefore not be to remove from the industry those who lack certain qualifications if they are willing to learn and to improve their practice. This should be an opportunity to improve the general common weal rather than just reduce consumer choice.

Today, we have heard from across the Parliament about why non-cosmetic surgery needs to be brought under regulations. Although it is a relatively new industry, it is expanding rapidly, and it is only right that we intervene via legislation to create the necessary changes and improvements that will let it thrive in a manner that is conducive to public and patient safety.

The bill will not solve everything. Much is happening in Scotland that is already illegal. However, without proper enforcement, many surgical abuses will continue. As it stands, there are very real concerns about how support will be given to the industry to meet the new standards. That is a real concern that we need to look at more.

However, it is clear that regulation is needed now so that patients can be assured of their safety, so that staff are safe and well trained, and so that Scottish practitioners can lead the world by developing best practice.

For all those reasons, Labour is happy to support the bill.

16:47