Meeting of the Parliament 10 February 2026 [Draft]
The Government is not in a position to support Richard Leonard’s amendments 1 and 5, which seek to introduce additional measures into both the community wealth building action plans and the ministerial statement. Although I understand that the member’s intention is to increase direct service provision by the public sector, the amendments do not define what is meant by “in-sourcing” or “outsourcing”, nor do they clarify which services are being referred to. Without clear definitions, the scope and practical implications are uncertain.
Amendments 1 and 5 also refer to services that are provided by the community wealth building partnerships. In practice, a partnership itself would not deliver services—delivery would sit with individual public bodies such as local authorities. The member has given some good examples of where in-sourcing has taken place and I commend him for raising the issue, but, as I said, the Government cannot accept the amendments as drafted.
Turning to amendments 2, 13, 6 and 17, we fully recognise the important role that credit unions and other co-operative financial institutions can play in supporting community wealth building. The amendments on that issue that were lodged at stage 2 could not be supported, largely because they would have placed statutory duties on ministers and the community wealth building partnerships in ways that would risk cutting across established financial regulatory frameworks and the operational independence of lenders.
Paul Sweeney’s amendments 13 and 17 relating to financial institutions represent a proportionate and workable approach in comparison with Richard Leonard’s amendments 2 and 6, as they would support access to finance aligned with community wealth building objectives without creating unintended statutory or regulatory consequences.
Financial mutuals play an important role in the UK’s financial services industry and include building societies, credit unions, mutual insurers and friendly societies, co-operative and community benefit societies and funeral-plan providers. They are owned by their members, with deep roots in communities, and that ownership model means that they can focus on delivering value exclusively to their members and provide access to financial services that may not otherwise be available. As such, they support the generation, circulation and retention of wealth in their communities.
The Scottish Government regularly engages with the financial services sector, including mutuals and regulators, to identify and raise specific needs of consumers, communities and organisations based in, and operating in, Scotland. Although my position is to oppose amendments 2 and 6 in the name of Richard Leonard, the Scottish Government is open to working with the member and with other colleagues to identify how best to use our engagement with the sector and the regulator to unlock the barriers that exist and to support investment by financial mutuals in our communities.
On amendments 14 and 18, I consider the term “investment” to be sufficiently broad and appropriate in this context. It is already part of the wider community wealth building framework that investment activity must support local benefit and the retention of wealth in communities in line with the community wealth building approach. In my view, the term does not imply support for extractive or externally driven investment models. The wider purpose and principles of community wealth building make it clear that activity must align with inclusive, locally rooted economic outcomes. I do not understand the distinction between investment on the one hand and funding and finance on the other. The current wording is wider, more accurate and better aligned with the aims of the bill, so the Government cannot support the amendments in Lorna Slater’s name.