Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have four amendments in the group, which were crafted with the assistance of Community Land Scotland. The amendments aim to strengthen the bill by ensuring that its general principles prioritise community organisations’ and local businesses’ retention of the wealth that is generated.

My amendment 72 would ensure that the general aims and outcomes of the bill are in

“line with the United Nations sustainable development goals”.

That is absolutely critical. The amended wording would mirror the language of the national performance framework, recognising that financial wealth cannot be separated from social, cultural, environmental and community wealth. I welcome the minister’s support for my amendment 72.

My amendments 73 and 74 would insert stronger wording to ensure that the measures truly promote opportunity, development and equality—which are crucial and should not be options—for community organisations. My amendment 117 would ensure that the UN sustainable development goals are properly defined and included in the legislation.

I hope that we will have constructive discussions. Some amendments present slight variations in wording options, such as among “must”, “should” and “may”. Even if it is not possible for all our amendments to be agreed to, I hope that, when we get to the votes, we will strengthen the bill.

Respectfully, I disagree with your point. If you were to come back to the Parliament in five years to see what difference the legislation had made, you would see that the bill could not deliver the transformation that it aspires to without these amendments. We all support the aspiration, but it is about delivery, which is a key lesson for the Parliament. This is not just about warm words—it is about ensuring that organisations are able and supported to deliver the changes and to meet the bill’s ambition.

I totally take that point, but, even if the minister does not support that change to the legislation, would he commit to looking at the economic models, so that they are not left behind and missed out?

My amendment 91 simply seeks to strengthen the consultation requirements around the preparation of a community wealth building action plan. As drafted, the bill sets out a list of bodies that a local authority must consult, but my amendment would add a clear requirement to include any community bodies operating in the area covered by the plan, so that there would be no risk of any community groups being ignored.

That is really important, because community wealth building is meant to be rooted in local priorities and experience. Community bodies are often the organisations with the closest understanding of local needs, assets and opportunities. Ensuring that they are explicitly included in the consultation process would help to make the action plan more grounded, more representative and, ultimately, more effective.

The other amendments in the group—they cover transparency, inclusiveness, joint working with local authorities, credit unions, development trusts and businesses—are all important.

I will comment on Richard Leonard’s remarks on Co-operative Development Scotland. It is really important that it remains on our profile and is not just subsumed by Scottish Enterprise. If we are going to make community co-operatives work, they must be higher up the agenda.

My next question develops that point. To what extent are workers and unions able to influence the discussion to deliver the transition to net zero? Last night, at a meeting of the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency and the CPG on islands, we focused on community-owned projects and community benefits. We heard that, if you frame it as decarbonisation, people are not interested, so we need to talk about jobs, lowering bills and investing in communities.

You have just talked about ownership. Can we do more to get the benefits that other countries are getting through renewable energy companies in Scotland? How are you involved? Is it about municipal ownership or planning changes? What are your thoughts on how to involve workers across the country in delivering this so that they benefit?

Who wants to come in on that?

Dougie, do you want to come in on that? How do you get involved so that your members get what they need?

It has been a really good discussion so far. I would like to move on to how the plan—the extent to which it is a plan has been questioned—links to other Government policies. I will pick on a couple of them. One is about the new industrial decarbonisation programme, which is critical. It is the single biggest driver of reduced emissions in this section of the plan. If you look at the stats, it is really significant. Even starting from 2026 to 2030, there has been quite a significant increase in emissions reduction, which is the ambition. However, the details of what that means in the plan are very limited.

To what extent do you think that the new policies in the draft climate change plan will deliver? It references the opportunity to unlock significant industrial electrification opportunities, but where is the detail? What are your thoughts on that in this section of the plan? The new industrial decarbonisation programme talks about a multiyear budget and linking to support for industry to cover a range of decarbonisation technologies to unlock significant opportunities, but there is not much detail. What would you like to see in the plan, or do you think that there is enough in there already? Professor de Leeuw, you are nodding away. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Another question that comes right off the back of your comments is about joined-up thinking and the green industrial strategy. We have had endless discussions about Grangemouth and, more recently, about Mossmorran. When you look at the opportunities, you can see that they are massive. The Deputy First Minister described the green industrial strategy as a “prospectus approach”. There is something about getting that investment delivered and seeing those opportunities.

Yesterday, we had a debate in Parliament on anaerobic digestion. If you had told me before the debate that we had more than 70 plants in Scotland that link food and drink, heat and waste, I would have been quite surprised. Where we have infrastructure, there is something about how we can kick it up to the next level. The green industrial strategy covers onshore and offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, professional and financial services, which we have not yet mentioned, hydrogen—particularly green hydrogen, and potentially at Grangemouth—and clean energy-intensive industries. There are huge opportunities, but how do you get that investment in there? To what extent is the draft CCP consistent with what is in the green industrial strategy? How do you get the elements to join up?

Who wants to kick off on how we get that to happen? Professor de Leeuw, do you want to come in?

Do we need more clarity? I see that Professor Turner wants to come in. In manufacturing, for example, there are massive developments in onshore and offshore wind, but we do not build the kit in Scotland—we import it all.

Those points are really well made.

I have another point that I want to ask about. There are four actions that the Scottish Government has committed to. We have talked about the UK Government reducing electricity costs, and there is talk of tackling the barriers to decarbonisation faced by energy-intensive industries—there has been discussion on that. However, one of the issues is about developing a resource delivery plan, which will identify a target and enable new clean energy-intensive industries to locate in Scotland. What more would you like to see in the climate change plan in relation to the green industrial strategy?

You have mentioned the supply chain. When we talk to the renewables sector, people always tell us that they need certainty and confidence. What more could be in the climate change plan to incentivise people to invest? We have seen some of the national wealth fund impact. Is there more that could be done through the CCP to give that certainty, perhaps through investors in different key sectors, to get the money going and get those industries—whether it is green hydrogen or CCS—developed in Scotland? Do you have thoughts about how the plan could be more helpful?