 The next item of business is a debate on motion 7247 in the name of Tom Arthur on asset transfers and community empowerment. Five years on, I'd invite members wishing to participate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible and I call on the minister to speak to a move in motion around 10 minutes minister. Thank you Presiding Officer and I'm grateful for the opportunity to bring this debate to Parliament, providing us with an opportunity to reflect on the progress that we have made in five years since introducing landmark asset transfer legislation that has empowered our communities to take on many other public places and spaces. Today's debate provides us with a chance to hear about the difference asset transfers have made locally in Scotland, enabling community organisations to take over management and ownership of many public spaces. It also allows us an opportunity to consider some of the challenges that we face, such as supporting our most vulnerable communities to engage with asset transfers. Community asset transfer is not something new or communities have a long history of owning and managing land and buildings. Local authorities have worked with community organisations for many years, agreeing transfer of assets that have often been surplus and where the benefits of community management have been recognised. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work carried out across the country by local authorities and other public service partners to develop community asset management and ownership strategies. Since the introduction of the Community Empowerment Act 2015, the initial good work has been strengthened by introducing new rights for community organisations submitting asset transfers, including a right of appeal, and by placing new responsibilities on public authorities to decide on applications and set timescales transparently and publish details of their assets and asset transfer activity annually. Since asset transfer legislation was introduced in January 2017, much has happened. The Scottish Government has worked directly with the 95 public authorities, known as relevant authorities, to establish and support annual reporting processes, including developing an annual reporting template to capture the necessary data. We commissioned researchers at Glasgow Caledonian University to carry out an evaluation on the first three years of asset transfer activity, which reported in July 2020. We set up the national asset transfer action group of partners and community representatives to consider the Glasgow evaluation and challenges to embed asset transfer. We hosted two national events for asset transfer in 2021, one for the relevant authorities and another for community organisations. Through those actions, we have learned a lot about how the legislation is working on the ground. For example, we know that local authorities currently received most requests, but they are signs that this is changing as other relevant authorities come on board and help community groups to take on their assets. Back in 2017-18, 85 per cent of the total number of asset transfer requests were made to local authorities, with only 15 per cent made to other public bodies. By 2021-22, 46 per cent of the total amount of requests were made to other public authorities, including health boards from Lancashire, Dumfries and Galloway, Fife, Grampain, Highland and Western Isles. With Scottish Government agencies including Scottish Water and Forestry in Lland Scotland receiving the requests. More than just numbers and data, those figures represent a tangible change to the way communities are now controlling their own place. For example, Forestry in Lland Scotland transferred the Fherrypools car park in Skye to Minganish community hall association, which went on to provide better facilities at the side. NHS Lancashire transferred Croy clinic to Croy community hub limited on an initial lease with the view of transferring full ownership, creating local jobs and enabling a local community space for the development of community groups. More than 350 asset transfers have been made using asset transfer legislation since 2017, with over 200 granted and many more in progress. That has played a significant role in maintaining the upward trajectory of overall community land use in Scotland. Of course, asset transfer sits within a wider community land use setting, with other mechanisms available for communities to take on land or buildings. We know from the latest community ownership in Scotland report 2021, published by the Scottish Government in September of this year, that there has been a steady upward trend in community ownership from a known 84 community-owned assets in the year 2000 to 711 in 2021. There has been more than a sixfold jump in community groups owning assets in the same period, from 74 groups owning assets in 2000 to 484 community groups owning assets in 2021. Our work with partners plays a vital role in embedding asset transfer policy. We fund the community ownership support service costs, which provide expert support and advice on the asset transfer process to community groups and to the relevant authorities. We established the aforementioned national asset transfer action group in October 2020 to help us to respond to the recommendations of the Glasgow Caledonian report. They also helped to inform the annual reporting template that we developed to support relevant authorities to meet their statutory duty to publish asset transfer data annually. The group also supported our work responding to the findings of the local government and communities committee from the last parliamentary session who made recommendations relating to asset transfer. We have listened to advice on working with the national group, and our partners have acted on recommendations, including our launch of the asset transfer guidance for considering social value in September of this year. Although we rightly celebrate the success of asset transfer, we are now working to better understand the detail of the data and learning gathered over the last five years. It is work under way to learn from those authorities promoting and embracing asset transfer and work to understand the cold spots of little or no activity and why that should be. We are listening to our community organisations and acting on their feedback and experiences. This work will form part of the wider review of the community empowerment act, which I launched in the summer of this year at the Loch Ness community hub in Glenurcote. I saw first-hand the achievements of a local community organisation, Glenurcote Rural Community Association, who took on a former tourist information centre using an asset transfer in 2018. Working with partners has turned it into a vibrant community hub, employing local people and operating a green transport business. As we progress the review, learning such as this will be explored with our partners and communities who have been asked their views on what is working and what needs to change. I want to now take a few moments to speak about some of the other key developments backed by the Scottish Government that will support communities to take on the running and ownership of more landing assets, as well as supporting wider community empowerment objectives. Community wealth building provides national and local government, the first sector, private sector and communities, with an opportunity to approach economic development in a new way, creating conditions for the people of Scotland to own a greater stake in local economies and shared wealth. We have seen significant progress made in the pilot areas of Cluck Maninshire south of Scotland, Western Isles, Taycities Fife and Glasgow City region, with all developing and embedding bespoke community wealth building action plans supported by the Scottish Government. In addition, the £3 million Ayrshire growth deal community wealth building fund commenced delivery in April of last year and is supporting local businesses and community organisations to grow local wealth. Through partnerships with local communities, businesses and anchor organisations, local authorities are taking collective action to implement community wealth building, helping to create fairer local economies that tackle poverty and inequality, focus on wellbeing and inclusion and maximise the benefits of public spend and strategic decision making. Locally, that could be small businesses or social enterprises winning procurement contracts for the first time, the creation of new local jobs or the protection of existing jobs, as well as communities owning and managing more local assets. The Community Empowerment Act review provides an additional opportunity to build on these successes, and there is an opportunity to progress this further through a more comprehensive place-focused model of economic development, both at the local and regional levels. To further support the implementation of community wealth building, we have committed to develop legislation and to hold a consultation to help us to gather a wide range of views on the changes that are required to grow local wealth and to give communities a greater stake in the economy. While asset transfer is an important tool in providing opportunities to communities throughout Scotland to acquire assets and takeover services, there are other options for acquisition, for example, through the various right to buy requests that are contained in the Land Reform Act Scotland 2003 and 2016. The Scottish Government also provides £10 million per year to support communities to acquire assets through the Scottish Land Fund. Over the last five years, the fund has given grants of more than £39 million to more than 230 projects across Scotland. In 2020-21, our programme for government committed to a new five-year SLF that commenced in April 2021, which will seek to double the SLF to £20 million by the end of this Parliament, enabling many more community groups to engage with public land ownership. As well as our support for the Scottish Land Fund, our place-based investment programme embeds at its core community empowerment and equality-backed with an initial £325 million capital investment over the next five years to support community-led regeneration and accelerate our ambitions for place, 20-minute neighbourhoods and town centres, helping to create conditions that support community wealth building. The place-based investment programme builds on the successful impact of the regeneration capital grant fund and town centre action plans and the partnerships and networks that have been built over a number of years. It aims to link and align all place-based funding initiatives to ensure that we have a coherent approach to build resilient communities and promote inclusive wellbeing and growth. It is complemented by our Empowering Communities programme, which provides support to develop and build the capacity of resilience and sustainability of our communities for which community ownership is a key part in helping to create more resilient and sustainable communities. Local Government is a key partner in delivering the place-based investment programme and will receive an allocation of £140 million of capital funding over the course of this Parliament. In addition to accelerating our shared ambitions for place, the funding will also contribute to net zero wellbeing, inclusive economic development, tackling inequality, disadvantage and community involvement in ownership. To complement the work that we have been supporting, we have supported participatory budgeting and participation requests as contained within the act. I look forward to the contributions, as we recognise the tremendous impact that asset transfer is happening, and I move a motion in my name. I will try not to go as quick as the minister there. I thank the Government for bringing this debate to Parliament, which highlights the fantastic organisations that we have across Scotland that are doing so much to improve our communities, bringing buildings and spaces back into public use. As a former councillor, I have seen first-hand the importance of empowering our communities. Although the SNP Government has stepped back, our communities have stepped up. With continued cuts to local authority funding, more responsibility has been passed on to local community groups, from planting flower beds to our Christmas lights displays. Communities in up and down this country have stepped up while this Government has failed. Buildings that once stood proudly in our town and village centres have fallen into disrepair due to shrinking council budgets. However, thanks to the UK Government's community ownership fund, some of those buildings are now being brought back into community use. We can say that it was believed that we must put communities first, empowering communities is absolutely critical in ensuring that our towns and villages can be the vibrant and thriving places they ought to be. The reality is that no-one knows better at how to achieve this than the individuals and families that live in those communities. Centralisation simply does not work. We need to see power move down to local communities, not the other way. From 2017 to 2021, I was the convener of Arbenin City Council's Finance Committee, the committee that dealt with the local authority's community transfer requests, with varying degrees of success depending on the asset and the group looking to acquire it. I will, however, start with some successes. The Seaton hubs and depot was an old disused council property. In 2018, it was agreed that the depot would be sold to the Seaton community church for just £1. It subsequently spent over half a million demolishing the old building and constructed not just a church but a brand-new community facility. Whilst doing my research for this debate today, I even found an old press clipping from 2018 that I had myself quoted as saying that their work will make a real and lasting difference to the residents who live in the area. By using surplus council assets in new ways and supporting the goals of partners like the Seaton community church, we can make a real difference to people across the city. It just shows that I sometimes get things right after all, because today the church has a full calendar of events from caged football to baby and toddler groups, proving a real asset for the community. I would like to thank and commend Barry Douglas, who had the vision and determination to see the project through. Another success story can be found in Fiti. Established in 2015, the Fiti community development trust sought to secure the gospel hall with the aim to renovate it for the community through fundraising. They were successful in securing the hall back in 2018 and are now well on their way to achieving their goals. Despite those positive stories, there were also some challenging asset transfers that have not yet been completed. One of those is Westburn House. Found in Aberdeen's Westburn park, the house is a much-loved part of the city's heritage. Sadly, Westburn House is rapidly falling into disrepair, with the roof now having collapsed and the huge cost to make the building wind and water tight appears to be the biggest hurdle for any revival. There is a will from the local authority to transfer the asset, the community support the transfer and they have a plan for the building use, but the sources of funding are limited. They have raised about £7,000, but this would be a drop in the ocean compared with the sums that are required. Those are only a few rare urban examples. Rural areas have been much more successful in implementing asset transfers. According to the Scottish Government's figures, only 5 per cent of community buy-outs have been in urban areas. The urban hub manager for community land Scotland has criticised the lack of progress for urban areas, saying that community land ownership has been transformative in hundreds of communities across Scotland, but the potential in urban areas has not been delivered yet. It should be a normal option in cities like it is in the Highlands and Islands. Perhaps the minister would like to give an indication of how that is to be addressed in the summing up remarks. The UK Government's community ownership fund has significant financial benefits for Scotland. Already serving communities across Scotland are currently being supported by £2 million of investment from the fund. In addition to that, the 11-up initiative sees Scotland benefiting from £2 billion of direct investment from the UK Government. In addition to that, the UK Government renewals fund also provides additional financial support of £220 million to prepare the way for the UK shared prosperity fund. But more still needs to be done. The process of community transfer is hugely complicated, with unnecessary red tape before an asset transfer can be agreed. It requires a huge amount of legal knowledge and planning by community groups prior to any transfer, which is often beyond the scope of the smaller groups. Much more support is needed for groups to enable them to find their way through the process and see more of the buildings and assets that have fallen into disrepair being bought back into life in our communities. The SNP says that they want to empower local communities, but at the same time are centralising services. They seem to be giving on one hand and taking away the other. Much more clarity is required from this Government. Do you want local communities and local councils to have more say in their own destinies or do you want to centralise services such as adult and children's social care? I urge the Scottish Government not to rest on their laurels. Work still needs to be done. We need more community empowerment, not less. We need to cut the red tape for community groups and help them to make applications for asset transfers. We need to work with the UK Government to fund projects. We need to stop the centralisation of services away from our local communities. I move amendment 7247.2 for around five minutes. I rise to move amendment 7247. I commend the spirit and labour of the community ownership endeavours in Scotland, the community empowerment efforts in Scotland, because it was Labour who originally established community land ownership in Scotland. We welcome all steps to, in principle, empower communities to take greater control over their destinies under the principle of subsidiarity, of course. However, we have to look at the context in which this act has been undertaken, where we have seen increasing retrenchment of local government. We have seen in Glasgow's case one in every 10 pounds available to the city removed, cut in the last decade, which has placed significant distress on the delivery of local services. What we are increasingly seeing is assets being transferred in a manner in which they are being distressed. They are not being done in a way in which they are productive or constructive. It is almost akin to a fire sale. That has been our major issue that has characterised the disposal of assets. Of course, in urban areas, the Conservative spokesperson said that only 5 per cent of community asset transfers are taking place in urban areas, but increasingly those that do are taking place in the context of distress situations. An example in Glasgow, which has been going on for many years, of course, is the Govenhill Baths, which was closed by Glasgow City Council over 20 years ago, and was occupied by the community in a protest. It was many years later that they were able to successfully win funding through the regeneration capital grant fund and the heritage lottery fund to begin the process of restoring that particular community asset after a long-running battle with the council. However, even now, as they ostensibly are succeeding in delivering the regeneration programme—indeed, they actually bought a tile and grave tile to help fund raise towards the community by little and grave tiles with the swimming pool—construction inflation has ran away from the project to such an extent that it is now going to be difficult to deliver the regeneration outcomes that were originally envisaged. That puts in jeopardy the grant funding that supported the community asset transfer in the first place. We are in a bit of a vicious cycle at the moment, minister, in the situation in which we are transferring assets and actually delivering the intended outcomes are being really difficult. Not only are councils seeing retrenchment of services, we are seeing the capacity of communities to rise to the challenge to take on those assets frustrated as well, not just by the paucity of the grant funding available but also the inflationary pressures being faced too. Those are difficulties. One of the first things that motivated me to get involved with politics was watching the on-going destruction and dilapidation of the historic properties in Springburn, where I grew up. I used to see every day the Springburn public halls, the one's proud centre of Springburn lying, boarded up, falling apart and then hoping that one day someone would come along and fix it, realising increasingly that the council, whenever we are going to do this, in fact, the council wanted to knock it down. In fact, it is 10 years almost to the day that overnight, 27 December 2012, the council came in and demolished that building overnight, with no discussion with the community, with no constructive attempts to try to find a solution that would save it. I am happy to give way on that point. I thank the member for giving way and on that point. I am not a particular point, but as a MSP for the city, I made many representations to the local authority at that time. They seem to fall with deaf ears and sometimes local authorities need more responsibility for the pastoral care that they have of traditional buildings in their communities. Right across Scotland, they just have to do better. I know that there are financial constraints, but they have to be more imaginative and more innovative also. I thank the member for his point, and he makes a very astute point in this risk regard. There is so much risk aversion in local government when it comes to community asset transfers, but they are not realising the full potential. I think that that is reflected in the Caledonian University report. In the case of Springburn public halls, the intended disposal was to a private property developer, which, due to the 2008 credit crunch, fell through. The next step was to clear the site, to dispose of a clean site, to a housing association. That was a listed property and was a source of great pride and esteem in the community that was destroyed. It was only out of the wake of that trauma. The real disgust that was felt in Springburn was palpable. We saw the rise, the moat, that was a stimulus for people to get involved. It was a realisation that councils are not going to be a white knight here, they are not going to ride to our rescue. We need to start forming our own organisations that gave birth to the Springburn Winter Gardens Trust, as Mr Doris will be aware of, but also the spirit of Springburn and other organisations. We see a rich tapestry of organisations in Springburn, but increasingly we are still frustrated by a lack of financial capacity. Only just recently, Springburn Winter Gardens Trust has been frustrated in its attempts to get UK Government levelling up funding. It was passed over by Glasgow City Council without any real explanation and was rejected from the Scottish Government's regeneration capital grant fund. I cannot see how demoralising it is for communities that are already at a low ebb, have a lack of capacity and are getting constantly hit in the face when they do try and be constructive and proactive. The minister has to reflect that there is only so much people can take in terms of frustration before they give up. There needs to be more pastoral support, more functional support in terms of administration helping to write bids and so on. It is trying to support communities in this regard. I think that that is where the act is deficient and that is where amendment tries to address these issues, that there is needing to be full of resourcing to look at things like conservation deficits, the availability of grant funding, not just to create a kind of rack ferrets in a sack type approach where people are scrabbling for finite funding, where there is always going to be the most people losing out. There is one of us a minority people actually winning these funds at any given year in that increasingly situation of vulnerability. In that regard, I think that there are a number of deficiencies in the act as it is currently being managed. We need to go further to resource us and particularly in urban areas where the greatest issue and need is in terms of deprivation. I hope that the minister will address those points as the debate progresses. Thank you very much, Mr Swinney. We now move to the open debate. I call first Paul McLennan to be followed by Alexander Stewart for around four minutes. Can I thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward this debate today? In researching for the debate, I looked at the council commission, who looked at the principles of community empowerment in 2019. I think that it is important that we remember what those are. The first one is community control, and it is important that communities are in policy when they are just touched on that as the minister on supporting communities to take more control over decisions and assets. I have seen a couple of examples in my own hometown. A bakery was taken over by a community bakery in a crunchy car at both successful businesses in their own right just now. The other thing is clear public leadership. Again, we have heard that. I think that it is really important, and the minister touched on that, that it is different in different parts of the country. We need strong and clear leadership in community empowerment. That sets a tone for the organisation and the communities themselves. We need to send out a clear and consistent message from local authorities in that regard. In effective relationships, that is incredibly important. We need to build effective working relationships between public bodies, local communities and local partners. I know in the local committee that we have been talking about the governance review and how all that works and how a lot of that flows in as well. I think that another key body to play in part of that has not been mentioned so far as the TSIs and what role they can play in supporting local groups to build up capacity so that they can take on those challenges. Of course, improving outcomes. We need to evaluate whether outcomes for local communities are improving and inequalities are being reduced. Evaluation is a key measure going forward, especially in the roundabout social impact. I might be asked the minister to pick on that when he winds up. He speaks on accountability. We need to be accountable and transparent. Public bodies are clear and open about their approach to community empowerment and provide regular information to communities that themselves are obviously understandable, jargon-free and accessible. All those are key as we look at the community ownership and asset transfer. As the minister mentioned, community ownership in Scotland in 2021 found that there were 711 assets in community ownership this time last year. That is more on a sixfold increase since 2000. Just over half 395 were acquired after 2010, with the 2015 Community Empowerment Act and 2016 Land Reform Act being key drivers. Promoting the community empowerment programme will be vital to stay and accelerate the steady upward trend. The great thing about asset transfer is that it is benefiting both rural and urban communities. A recent report published by Community Land Scotland has revealed that 20 per cent of all community owned assets are now urban and not just rural. The change came about following the community right to buy extended to cover urban areas in 2016. It has been mentioned before that almost £7 million of funding was provided by the Scottish Land Fund to enable the buy-outs. Rayburn, chair of Community Land Scotland, said that in the last five years since the introduction of the Game Changing Community Empowerment Act and the extension of the Scottish Land Fund to all of Scotland's communities, the energy, ambition and achievement of Scotland's urban communities has been inspiring. That is a trick. We need to make sure that we are inspiring our communities to take those projects on. All over Scotland, people have been using the new powers and funding that have been made available to them by the Scottish Government since 2016 to buy and run shops, redundant churches, community centres, high street buildings, woodland parks, pubs and bowling greens. Community Land Scotland said that struggles many of them had to go through to say that local facility or bring back a direct building or site back into use or campaign for local generation has given them the strength and skills to respond to those new challenges. Local communities know best in this regard. Rayburn then went on to say that there are so many successes from the first five years of urban land reform in Scotland. That highlights the vision and tenacity of urban community owners and establishes the transformational impact of community ownership and community lead development in urban areas. What can we do in the next five years? Pan-in Minister launched the Review of the Community Empowerment Act in July providing a chance to further benefit communities. Local communities know their localities better than local councils or national government. We need to ensure that we keep all power local and that we continue to shift the balance of power to our communities. We need to ensure that local people can have even more of a say in the things that matter to them. The minister talked about the national asset transfer group, which I think was set up in 2020, which I think will be incredibly important. Of course, the national planning framework has ensured that local councils and communities retain a key role in planning and infrastructure. The place principle lies at the heart of NPF4, building communities throughout Scotland. In conclusion, the Community Empowerment Act, in particular, as it transfers, has proved its success in the past five years. Our challenge in the next five is to ensure that our communities have the capacity, funding and support from local and national government. Our rural and urban communities, as well as our tent centres, will benefit. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I will support the amendment in the name of Douglas Lumsden. A common feature across all communities in Scotland is the desire to be involved in decision making at all possible levels. Community empowerment is the responsibility of both local and central government, and I therefore welcome the opportunity to debate that today. The Community Empowerment Act of 2015 was an attempt to promote local government by enshrining into law several different contexts. As part of the local government and communities committee in the previous Parliament, I contributed to the report which assessed how effective the act had been in the four years since it became law. Looking at part five of the act, it was clear that there was still more to be done to unlock the potential benefits of asset transfer requests. Although awareness of asset transfer is now high among community groups, in practice there is still too much variation on how smoothly the process is running. For example, some groups are finding themselves being offered leases instead of ownership of an asset. With public authority sometimes reluctant to recognise the effect of transfer can be about more than just a monetary value, but the potential benefits to the community, Presiding Officer. Our committee was told that it had, by all means— Paul Sweeney. I thank the member for giving way. He makes a very astute point about the issue of having these clawback clauses and these lease arrangements, because they can militate against qualifying for grants that then frustrate the very delivery of the project that is trying to be achieved, so that it can actually have a vicious effect. Alexander Stewart, I can give you that time back. I thank the member for that intervention. Yes, he makes a very valid point. If there is not that co-operation or that understanding or that knowledge in base taking place, then it is not going to progress and it frustrates the whole process within the community. The public, as I say, are well aware of the difficulties. Our committee was told that, as a result in some communities, they were being put through the ringer during this whole process. That was never the intention, Presiding Officer, of the act, of putting individuals in communities through a process that was becoming problematic. The cultural shift required was no doubt that that should take place, and the evidence in the reports has shown that there are yet to be much more achieved. Further clarification is needed on how part 5 should work when it comes to arms-length organisations. Given the significant number of potential community assets that organisations own or operate in on or behalf of councils, public authorities or community groups, there must be a clearer understanding of how community empowerment act applies to those areas. True empowerment of our communities will depend not just on unlocking the potential, but on ensuring that there will be the opportunity to support. While the act aims to empower communities in certain issues, we know that communities are being diminished in many other ways. Since 2017, nearly half of all planning decisions that have been appealed by ministers have been overturned. That translates to hundreds of decisions being overturned against the wishes of the community and community elected representatives. In the face of the increasing local government budgets that has been and will continue to be funding issues set out. Throughout the whole time in local government, I have learned that community empowerment is something that requires improvements in several areas. Although I hope that the benefits of asset transfer can be realised over time, that must take place and will take some time to ensure that it is possible. He has been very generous indeed. He makes an important point about planning appeals, particularly those that can be used to ride roughshod over local opinion. Would he think that perhaps a measure that could be looked at is making final right of appeal to the Parliament, as a committee of the Parliament, rather than being a bureaucracy in Sandra's house? I thank the member for the intervention. I think that Paul Sweeney makes once again a very valid point that there should be more involvement with us here, rather than disministers through a pen or through an action indicating what they require. In conclusion, the Government motion is right to talk about improvements and ensuring that assets and community led regeneration are part of the wealth that we see within those communities. The Parliament, along with COSLA and local authorities across Scotland, are united in wishing to see communities empowered across the country. All communities are all willing to report, yet there seems to be some goals that we are not quite achieving. The journey is still in its early stages in going forward, and the onus must be on all of us to keep pushing to ensure that people are truly able to have a greater say in how their communities are empowered. I now call Collette Stevenson to be followed by Paul O'Kane around four minutes with Stevenson. Today's debate allows us to celebrate and reflect upon the first five years of the asset transfer legislation, which is an important tool for building a Scotland where everyone can play their full part in society. As a successful part of Scotland's community empowerment agenda, the scheme allows communities to take control of local assets and use them to develop their own economies, enhance their wellbeing and nurture the environment. I want to mention an excellent story from East Kilbride back in 2019. East Kilbride United took over the Kyrtunholm playing fields and pavilion through an asset transfer. Since then, the area has been transformed. With two of the best grass football pitches in the west of Scotland, four state-of-the-art changing rooms, as well as a fully licensed club room and cafe, it has been really great to see the input from the local community and local businesses with time and materials donated to help the redevelopment. Kyrtunholm is home to several teams now from the AG4s right through to the Jerry Hattricks, a walking football group, and the positive contribution of this redevelopment goes beyond football. When local council halls closed during Covid, many community groups were left with nowhere to go. Thankfully, EK United stepped in and allowed the special needs adventure playground, or SNAP, as it is better known, to use their renovated facilities. SNAP was recognised by the care inspectorate as an essential service, and it was heartening to see the community-run facility at Kyrtunholm being offered to this vital group. The development continues, and EK United received further funding of £185,000 earlier this year, and they will use it to modernise showers and ensure that they are accessible for disabled people as well as to build a new seven-a-side pitch. That development is really building wealth in the community, particularly with the socially just use of land and property. The only negative of the story is that this is the only example of a community asset transfer in East Kilbride. Applications in South Lanarkshire have grown in the past year, but I would love to see more transfers taking place in East Kilbride. I look forward to hearing contributions and to see how asset transfers are working in practice from members across the country. I would like to see councils publishing lists of the buildings and land that they own, including where they are occupied or not, or even under occupied, as well as a condition report. That could help people, and I know a few in East Kilbride that that would apply to, to see what might be available for an asset transfer so that buildings and land can be used by groups to serve the community. The SNP and Government is working to ensure that more people and local communities in Scotland have a greater stake in our economy, sharing ownership and building resilience to create a fairer and more secure economic future. A focus on place-based community-led regeneration is welcome. With the recent news of East Kilbride shopping centres owners going into administration, I want to see South Lanarkshire Council do everything it can, including assessing the opportunity to buy the centre to ensure its survival. I have been in touch with the administrators, the council and other relevant parties, and I hope that we can all work together, including with local residents, to protect and enhance the town centre. Through its use of community wealth building approach to economic development, the Scottish Government has helped local businesses and communities to have a greater stake in how their local economy functions. A culture of community wealth building will help to transform local places, including East Kilbride, and deliver a well-being economy. I look forward to seeing this continue. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm delighted to be able to speak in this important debate and to support my party's amendment. I want to focus my comments today on some of the experiences from my working life and from asset transfer experience in my communities across West Scotland. There is a real sense in the debate today that the general principles of the legislation are good and well-intentioned in devolving power to local communities and empowering local citizens to take ownership of community assets of strategic or historic importance. Indeed, many of the assets that we have heard mentioned by colleagues already are often the anchors within communities, particularly in town centres and village centres. It was necessary that legislation equalised the process to some extent, giving more options to urban communities as well to take control of assets, and we have heard already some of the importance of that. Labour is indeed proud of our establishment of such rights to own community land and community assets, which were established in the very first years of the Parliament. Indeed, there have been positive examples of communities that led the way using that legislation. Indeed, one known well to the minister and myself is the community of Newlston, where I am from, where the Newlston Development Trust led the way by purchasing the old bank through community rights by legislation, which is now a community hub in the village, and has become a real asset with a community cafe. Lots of different groups meeting there and using the space and indeed the Newlston Community First Responder Service operating out of that base. It shows what can be done when one asset leaves a place and is replaced by something that can fulfil a gap that is in some ways created. However, I think that I would agree with the comments that have already been made by colleagues about the system needing to be simplified and made more accessible for people. When I worked in the voluntary sector in the precursor to the TSI that was mentioned by Paul MacLennan, we were at the very beginning of the consultations on much of the legislation. I remember at that time having conversations with colleagues and community groups in East Dunbartonshire about the need to build capacity in community groups to be able to be upskilled and ready to take on community assets, because it is not always an easy thing to do. It is particularly challenging very often in community groups and organisations where the board and the committee of the group are just trying to keep the lights on and the doors open and provide all the services that they provide to then be asked to become a legal expert, an expert in perhaps deeds and trust, an expert in the funding that is available for those sorts of things. Capacity has always had to be built and has always been at the heart of that, but very often because of other decisions taken in spending, there has not always been the same level of support for that capacity being available. I would say that that is probably true on the council side as well, because having been a councillor for 10 years, what I have seen quite clearly is that the departments that are set up to deal with a lot of those transfers have been depleted. What we do not have is the same level of staffing that is able to support communities who want to see that asset transferred. I want to highlight something that is important not just about physical buildings but the importance of community spaces, which can be supported and cared for through asset transfer. There are a number of excellent youth football clubs in my region who are really keen to take an asset transfer of old playing fields in their community and use them for the benefit not just of the football clubs that they run but, indeed, for the wider community. I know that they have had challenges in engaging with councils across the region and being able to do some of that. I will mention Port Glasgow Juniors, Bishopton Football Club, Nielsen Football Club and St Carrick's Youth Football Club, who have all come to my door asking for help and support. Again, I think that it is really about having that capacity built in. I am conscious of time to conclude. I know that Mary McCallan has committed to ensuring that community groups going through the asset transfer system have a dedicated case worker. I think that that is important and something that we need to follow up. We have to offer a lending hand to people who want to improve their communities, not putting hurdles in their way. I hope that the minister here today will listen to some of the feedback and be able to reflect on his closing on what we can do to make this process easier and more accessible. It is a great honour to speak in this debate today on asset transfers. My constituency of Co-Bridge and Crescent has seen this policy utilised very effectively through a number of projects since the act was introduced, perhaps working the trend that Douglas London spoke about earlier. There have not been many urban areas, and I will take the opportunity today to reference some of them here. Those transfers are at their heart seeking to include more people in local communities across Scotland and having a greater stake in our economy, sharing ownership and building resilience to create a fairer and more diverse economic future. Community asset transfers symbolise a Scotland where everyone can play their part and contribute to society at a local level. A great example of that can be found with the Glen Boyd Development Trust, who took full advantage of the community asset transfer process to develop the life centre. The centre truly acts as a cornerstone of community life in the village of Glen Boyd for so many people living in the area. In its capacity as a local community hub, the life centre promotes the health and wellbeing of the local community, and that is realised through schemes that encourage physical and mental wellbeing, combating isolation and fostering a sense of community. The centre works with roughly 20 diligent volunteers on a regular basis. Those volunteers support the day-to-day running of the centre's community cafe, village post office, community transport service and other services and activities. The SNP Government seeks to continue our long-running agenda of community regeneration through the Empowering Communities programme. In the case of the Glen Boyd Development Trust, they were able to avail of £1 million in Scottish Government funding from the regeneration capital grant fund. Further funding was also secured through the Scottish land fund. That underlines, I think, the Scottish Government's commitment to empowering local community projects like those. Elsewhere in my constituency, the Scottish land fund awarded a £68,000 grant to the Kirchaws neighbourhood centre. That investment allowed the centre to find a permanent home at the site of former tenement buildings. Just like the life centre in Glen Boyd, the Kirchaws neighbourhood centre supports the community through a range of services and activities, including over 65s IT training, an employment programme, community cooking classes and, most recently, a community fridge that I had the pleasure of attending the opening for. The centre's good work continues to be recognised and it continues to be awarded grants to further their community aims. Just last week, I circulated a motion commending the centre on securing an amazing £150,000 grant from the National Lottery Community Fund, and that will finance a three-year project that will benefit over 3,000 people in Cope Ridge in my constituency. Local communities have a better knowledge of how their areas can be enriched, as we've heard from others, so it's vital, especially during this cost of living crisis, an economic uncertainty that these local communities and organisations are giving greater powers over their own future. The pandemic emphasised the necessity for strong community spirit and a sense of coming together. Indeed, during the summer of 2021, when restrictions were beginning to ease, the Cliftonville community group utilised a mechanism to take over the Cope Ridge indoor bowling club and transformed it into a vital community asset, which contains a tier room, a function room and an education centre. The group retained the bowling club, which is still based at the centre, and I'm happy to remind the chamber that the club is the current holder of the Scottish Senior Singles title and the Senior Gents Force title, and I wish him the best of luck in next year's British Isles Championship. And good luck also to the fantastic Lancer Deaf Services, who are at an early stage in their potential process for a community asset transfer. Those are all good examples, and as I said earlier, I think that it bucks the trend in terms of being a very urban area, but I would say that when community groups speak to me, they are still concerned about hurdles and delays and often talking about jumping through hoops and often the process taking years from first identification of a site that they would like to be transferred. A lot of those examples actually took quite a long time, and I think that that's something that the Government could look at. Take in Dunbeith football club, for instance, and I should say, Presiding Officer, I know you're a football fan, I should say my eldest son plays for the 2014s. I'd like to put on record my thanks for the tireless work of the head coach Gary Bradley and, indeed, all the coaches who give up so much of their own time. Well, the club took over an old pavilion for their games, a simple pavilion, and training for their games in their training and their work through the Kearn McDade festival. However, they are still in the prolonged process of having the asset transferred over. It just feels like it should be a lot simpler. Presiding Officer, I also wanted to talk about the Airdrie Harriers at Langone Sports Centre, but I don't think I'm going to have time, and I'm seeing that that is not going to be the case. So, in terms of coming to a conclusion, I will speak to the minister directly about the Airdrie Harriers and their plans for an asset transfer at Langone Centre, and I'll speak to him separately about that. Presiding Officer, walking into the Rockfield centre in Oben, you cannot help but be struck by the bright primary colours, the warmth, the welcome, and the creativity of the space. The Rockfield centre is a shining example of a community driving positive change in achieving its ambitions through ownership and management of a building. Rockfield is in the centre of Oben. It was the town's response to the Education Act of 1872 being built as a school to educate around 400 children in Oben. The grand opening of Rockfield primary school took place in 1877. Parents had been asked to present their children with clean faces and hands, and where possible, adequately clad. 145 years later in June this year, the refurbished buildings doors were officially reopened by the minister, where I'm pleased to say that everyone had clean faces and hands and were adequately clad. Oben Communities Trust was established in 2014 following a community campaign to purchase and save the building. The local community had identified a desire to establish a cultural hub, which would support four themes determined through extensive community consultation. The former classrooms now host a programme of events, workshops and activities covering those themes, which are arts and culture, history and heritage, community wellbeing, education and enterprise. The Rockfield team worked with local service providers to create activities that meet their needs. For example, Arts High in Munch Scotland, Dementia Scotland, Enable Scotland, Young Carers and Health and Education Services. In response to the cost of living crisis, the centre is part of the Warm Spaces initiative, and in January we are starting a free breakfast club for school children and free after school club three days a week. There are also plans to create a traditional skills hub, and funding is also being sourced to create purpose-built sensory room. People at the heart of their community recognise what their community needs and are empowered to deliver. In my opinion, that is the key to successfully growing community wealth, as those opportunities come in all shapes and sizes. Slightly before the legislation, 10 years ago, in South Kintar, RAF Markerhannish airbase was purchased by the community, securing its lifeline air service and providing Markerhannish airbase community company with 1,000 acres of opportunity. Watchtowers, military bunkers, military accommodation blocks, even a parachute drying tower and a disused bowling alley, which is now home to the UHI Argyll's Brewster Construction and Engineering Centre, and they've also got so much land. Employment peaked pre-Covid at 252. There are 125 tenancies, and direct spend on local contractors from Mac sits at £2.42 million. And also £75,000 has been donated to local charities. Mac are also progressing environmental aims by installing a solar farm and recently broke ground helped by six local schools on the 10,000 trees project that will support the site's diverse wildlife. I was very pleased to host the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise at Mac this summer. This is a success, but it could be so much more. Geography and perception hinder its development. Mac, its assets and contire have significant potential, therefore continued, and if I might suggest enhanced policy support to realise this is needed. In preparing for this debate, I spoke to Argyll and Bute Council, and they provided me with an outline of the work that the council is doing to support community wealth building. Argyll and Bute is strong in some areas such as community empowerment, community assets and wealth generation. The circular economy, including procurement, is weaker in other areas, such as local skills development and access to affordable finance. A study is being commissioned in partnership with HI and the TSI, which will help to determine strengths and weaknesses in relation to a wellbeing economy in greater detail. I welcome the work from the council and look forward to analysing the report. I have only highlighted two empowered organisations in my constituency, but there are so many more. Very quickly, South West Mull and Iona development, South Islay development and, of course, the hundreds of volunteers supporting community wealth growing, community empowerment and community wellbeing across Argyll and Bute. We must continue to have the courage to ensure that our empowered communities have the right tools and support to be a powerful force in community wealth and resilience building that Scotland deserves. I now call Arrianne Burgess to be followed by Stephanie Gallan in four minutes. I welcome the opportunity to champion the work that has taken place in our communities over the past five years to make community empowerment a reality. It has been a pleasure to hear from community groups across the Highlands and Islands about the successes of the bill and wider land reform legislation to enable community-led regeneration. From playing fields to public toilets, community halls to growing spaces, it is clear that our communities are just getting started in exercising those powers to reimagine underused local assets. Community-led regeneration has huge potential to empower local communities to tackle poverty and equality and build community wealth on their own terms. In Tom and Towel, a derelict secondary school is currently being redeveloped into homes, a quarter of which will include workspaces for micro-enterprises by the Tom and Towel and Glenlivet Development Trust, with support from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Communities Housing Trust. Sadly, the story is not always one of success. Communities face significant barriers. Some of those are structural, a lack of experience and capable volunteers with the time and skills to dedicate to the work, for example, but often are financial. That is why the Bute House agreement commits us to increasing the Scottish land fund substantially, doubling it by £20 million by 2026. While we now have numerous examples—we have heard about them this evening—of how the approach can reinvigorate communities and provide a catalyst for investment and regeneration, we still need to address Scotland's concentrated pattern of rural land ownership with 67 per cent of rural land holdings being owned by just 1,400 of the population. That is why the Scottish Greens welcomed the proposed public interest test for large land holdings and the pre-emption in favour of community buy-out in the recent consultation to update the Land Reform Act. The concentration of private land ownership in rural Scotland can stifle entrepreneurial ambition, reduce local aspirations and hamper the ability to address identified community need. It also places considerable power over jobs, housing and access to spaces in the hands of a few. User-friendly data on implementation of legislation, such as part five of the Community Empowerment Act 2020, knowing exactly what is owned by whom in Scotland can help us to progress. I believe that the minister spoke to that to some degree. Long-term success stories such as that of the Isle of Egg have shown how conservation and sustainability can be central to community regeneration activities. From renewable energy generation to nature conservation and ecotourism, the community trust is pioneering the island's transition to carbon neutrality. However, we should also acknowledge that some parts of Scotland benefit more than others from policy instruments. The Government can and should compensate for that by focusing public spending on communities that are most in need of support so that every community can thrive. We should take this opportunity to acknowledge the vital role that land plays in addressing climate change and that community ownership provides a route to addressing this challenge. We need to put our money where our mouths are on this by ensuring that community councils and development trusts are financially supported and that the purpose of community planning partnerships are much better understood. With increasing public and private sector investment in peatland restoration, woodland creation and carbon sequestration, part of ensuring that a just transition must be about making sure that the benefits of investment in those areas is felt as widely as possible and that local communities are empowered to manage underused, unproductive and unoccupied land around them in the ways that address the climate emergency. To conclude, whether it is through wormhud, community-growing spaces or community kitchens, deepening and accelerating the transfer of assets to communities can alleviate the cost of living crisis and the fiscal pressures currently being experienced by local authorities. That is an area that I am keen to see developed as I work with the minister on the forthcoming community wealth building bill. Stephanie Callaghan, who is the final speaker in the open debate after which we move into closing speeches around four minutes, Ms Callaghan. There is no more powerful illustration of community empowerment than a community coming together to take control of a local asset. I warmly welcome this opportunity to champion community asset transfers, particularly given the positive impact that community asset transfers are having in communities in my constituency of Oddingston and Bellshill. Taking control of assets involves local people attaching a part of themselves to their community, thereby driving local ambition and strengthening cohesion. Succesfully achieving a cat is a major undertaking for any community group, but the empowerment that delivers cannot be understated, ensuring delivery of better, more tailored local services and, tangibly, building community wealth. Although the majority of community asset transfers have occurred in rural and island communities, I hope that Mr Sweeney will be pleased to hear that I am going to share today two examples in my own urban constituency. Firstly, Boddwell Futures, who successfully took over that iconic Boddwell library building this summer and where they are now creating a multifunctional wellbeing hub for the benefit of all local residents. When Boddwell Futures started the cat process with South Lanarkshire Council in leisure and culture, they were told that the process would take two years, but with a small, skilled and energetic team, an impressive 20-year strategic plan and critically great collaboration from council officials and local councillers, I hope that colleagues are glad to hear that the transfer was completed in eight short months. Although Boddwell is a vibrant village, it lacks community space to deliver in the residents' exciting vision. Through this community asset transfer, the former library building is set to become the beating heart of Boddwell, breathing new life into the village and ensuring a sustainable future. View Park Garden's Trust, again in my urban constituency, is a quite different but equally inspiring example of a community asset transfer. In this case, the Trust applied to take over the much-loved View Park Garden site that features so many local wedding photos and cherished memories for local people. The pandemic lockdown was no match for the Garden Trust's creativity, but despite the huge community support throughout a very successful engagement process, the Trust's community asset transfer request was denied by North Lanarkshire Council. Undaunted, the Trust submitted an appeal to the Scottish Government, making history by winning the right to take the land into community hands on appeal. Once delivered, the community asset transfer will provide a safe, green and inclusive space for groups and individuals with plans for a mix of mental health and wellbeing projects alongside community-led provisions for local clubs and charities. I for one cannot wait to see the Garden's return to its former glory. In contrast to Boddwell futures, the timeline to achieve success has been linked there for the Trust, and I must pay tribute to the community ownership support service. Their advice and expertise was invaluable during the highly teched the appeal process. The commitment that is shown by View Park Garden Trust in Boddwell futures is really inspiring. While the successful appeal is testament to the empowerment strength that underpins the Scottish Government's legislation, it would be good to hear the Minister confirm the current review will look for ways to make the processes easier. As we have heard from the minister today too, positive collaboration among stakeholders is key, and the independent evaluation by Glasgow Caledonian University sets out for their action to support local authority and community transfer bodies and maximise the potential of community asset transfer requests. We need to see many more local authorities and public bodies welcoming requests for community asset transfers, and we need to see remaining elements of resistance removed, because the ability of community groups to consult local people, identify the complex challenges they face and deliver effective support really is unparalleled. As we are measured from the pandemic during a cost of learning and climate crisis, empowered communities are exactly what Scotland needs. We know that communities can pull together and work to make their dreams a reality. It is our job to help them. Deputy Presiding Officer, it has been a really interesting debate, and it is certainly very insightful. I thank all members for the interesting points that they have made. I think that we have developed a clear understanding of where the act has done very positive things, but we also need to do much more to reinforce its intended outcomes for our communities across Scotland. That is in the spirit of the amendment that the Labour has put forward today. I thank the member for Aneesden and Bell. We are offering two really interesting examples, one that seems to be working really well in the old library building, as I mentioned, but also some difficulties that have been faced in going through a much more convoluted process. It is certainly something that I have seen at first hand. I should declare interest as a trustee of the Beatroot Art Centre in Birmolwch, which has recently acquired the old building from Glasgow City Council that it operates out of, and it has been similarly having a difficult time going through the legal aspects of having to resolve that issue. It is something that Alexander Stewart mentioned as well in dealing with complex legal arrangements, which can often take very long time, cost a lot of money, exhaust a lot of goodwill from people who are doing this pro bono, usually, and they are not necessarily got the resilience that everyone needs to do this through. In that respect, we need to look at very carefully what we are asking communities to do here, because often people can lose their will to live trying to get this sorted out. All power to the view part of the garden's trust for persevering. I would like to say in credit to the people who have ran Beatroot as well in Birmolwch, who have seen that through and successfully achieved an outcome. Let's hope that we can make this slicker in the future as we learn more about how to do this. We support our local authorities to deliver those outcomes more efficiently. We have seen that reflected across the debate today. The member for East Lothian, for example, mentioned capacity funding and support that are critical. We cannot simply divest assets and then say in the next funding round that they have lost the budget for their homecoming that they have to make staff redundant and close their building. We need to make sure that we are not simply passing off the brutal reality of cutbacks on to third parties from local authorities. We need to make sure that that is properly reinforced with the financial security that will ensure resilience. Of course, we have seen across the piece references—for example, if the member for Argyll and Bute mentioned the Education Act 1972—to produce some of the most amazing architectural buildings developed in our municipal authorities. In fact, more than 100 of those 1872 school board schools were developed in Glasgow. Unfortunately, between 1919, when it was handed to Glasgow Corporation in 2010, 60 of those schools were demolished. In fact, today in Glasgow, there are about 15 of them still derelict. It is an example of amazing architectural artefacts. We cannot build those things again. We are desperate to get in there and take over those buildings, but there are frustrated in many cases because, although the wills and the desires are there, the hope and pride in our communities are there. People do not want to see this stuff bliting their local communities, but they are maybe not equipped with the skillset to do quantity surveying, legal documents to convey property and settle complex legal arrangements with councils. Those are particularly focused on poorer districts. If you forgive me for being parochial about Glasgow, 44 per cent of buildings currently at risk in Glasgow are in the areas of the highest deprivation in the city, while only 7 per cent currently at risk are in areas with the lowest-rank deprivation. That tells the story about the areas of greatest need that are often the places where the least capacity—there is not the lawyer and living in the street, there is not the quantity of surveying—can get together and have the time and energy after dealing with a cost-of-living crisis, speeding the kids, etc. to go down to those board meetings and do all this stuff pro bono. We need to look very carefully, and I hope that the minister reflects on this in his closing remarks. It can be really demoralising for community groups. I am sure that Mr Doris, in some of his interventions, made this point as well. Ariane Burgess made this point as well. As other members have included my colleague Paul Cain from West Scotland, there are really difficult problems to face when you have done all this work, you have built something up that you think is really important, got a lot of community support, go for funding and then you are given a cursory response that says, bad luck, wasn't up to scratch, see you next time. I think that that needs to stop and we need to say, okay, you didn't meet these criteria, maybe you need to do more about community outreach, maybe you need to do more about building partnerships locally. Here is resource that the Government will now provide you with in the form of some sort of mentor or case worker to work with you to get it to a level of rigor that you are needing, because clearly there is potential there, clearly there is a desire in the community to do something, but maybe there are professional deficiencies that need to be addressed, but that is something to work with, not just simply cast out. I would argue that the Government needs to do more about making that work with communities. Springburn, for example, an area that I should declare interest in is the chair of the Springburn Warrant and Gardens Trust as well. I have been working tirelessly for 10 years to try to get this A-listed building, Scotland's largest glasshouse, fixed up, and we have made two steps forward and one step back at every occasion. It can be a war of attrition to try and save these amazing assets for our community. I am sure that there is good will across the house to see this work, but let us understand that the Government needs to do more to work with us to get it to a place where it can be successful, because even I, as a member of the Scottish Parliament, feel frustrated about it. Good knows known to what other community activists are feeling like when they have these constant hurdles to overcome. That is where we all want to see this act improve. We want to see the delivery of the intentions of the act improve, and I hope in that spirit that we can go forward and deliver a better public policy for this country. Thank you very much, Mr Swinney, and I call Miles Briggs for around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that today's debate has given us an opportunity to celebrate asset transfers in all our communities. Fulton MacGregor maybe wins the award for most thank yous that he was able to deliver during his support, during his speech, but I think that Jenny Minto maybe gave him a run for his money as well on that. I am not going to be outdone, because I want to also highlight some of the great projects that we have seen here in my own region. I was pleased to support in September 2016, Belfield, which was the first community right to buy an asset transfer in Portobello. Belfield is a community centre located in what was previously Portobello Old Parish Church. It is a Georgian church of classical design located in Belfield Street in Portobello. The church was subject to a successful community buy-out in 2017 and then reopened following some vital investment that was needed in June of 2018 and has gone from strength to strength. There seems to be something in the water in Portobello because there has been quite a lot of community buy-outs taking place since, including the community at Portobello's town hall, which I know locals were really determined that they wouldn't see lost. It just shows you when communities really use this, it can deliver results and I think that we all want to see that and all want to encourage that going forward as well. Paul Sweeney made some important points in relation to distressed community assets and I think that that is important when you look at the assets which are becoming more and more difficult to take forward. That is something that I think that we need to look at additional support around. Although he hasn't spoken in this debate, Willie Coffey, in terms of local government committee, often raises and highlights individual issues around individual buildings and ownership and often the lack of capacity which councils have to address empty buildings and condemned buildings. I think that that is something that we need to see more work on. Often the ownership around a building can become incredibly difficult to unpick and get to the heart of as well. Yes, happy to. I thank the member for giving way. Would he agree with me that perhaps it is all too easy for public bodies to simply put the boards up on windows and abandon public buildings, thus leaving them to be completely dilapidated and then end up destroying the value that they are for the public purse? I would agree with that point, but I also think that council budgets do not allow them to do much else, apart from looking towards health and safety concerns of those buildings, which is their duty at the end of the day. There is also the point where you can actually build a council saving money on those properties as well, because they may be paying £15,000, for example, to keep it setr there as well. Actually, if they invest time and effort and they have a cat team helping those communities to take those assets forward in a really good balanced way, that actually that is a great way forward, thanks. I agree with that point. I think that that is where, and my colleague Alexander Stewart highlighted this, the process often around community asset transfer can be complicated. We need often councils to be in that place to assist communities. Going forward, that is where we need to see more focus around the teams who are going to deliver that. We know that planning departments are having problems in terms of staffing anyway, but often people are not being directly allocated to help support this work in councils, and that is something that we need to see improved as well. Specifically with regard to the points that Ariane Burgess made, those were important in relation to new innovative uses of buildings on high streets. I, for one, want to see many of our high streets have opportunities to bring diverse former shops into housing use, something that we need to look at. I do not think that necessarily we captured that within the national planning framework that the Government is bringing on. The local government committee recently undertook an allotment inquiry. I do not think that we can honestly say that we have given community empowerment for people who want to see more green space and more growing opportunities, and that certainly was the conclusion that we drew as a committee. There is something very specific about how land that is within public sector ownership, which could potentially be used for community growing, is not being released and something that we need to look at, because there is certainly, especially post-pandemic, an appetite for that to be taken forward. I hope that we can can see that progressed, and that is certainly what we try to do as a committee. One of the points that members across the chamber have also looked towards is the future sustainability of projects. I am concerned with some of the organisations that I am working with about the actual construction inflation that they are facing—this has been for some time—and where they are with financing future projects. We are constantly returning to government and also local government to ask for that support, but I think that planning and the organisations that often provide grants for that are becoming more and more difficult to access. We need to look towards that support and how it is going to be delivered. Finally, I also want to touch on a point that was put to me by one of the projects with regard to where we are going to make sure that the next five years we will be delivering the projects that are harder to meet. I put that to the minister that some of those schemes have been the low-hanging fruit that those buildings can become easily transferred. There are more difficult ones, and I think that Paul Sweeney outlined that. I think that this is going to be where the legislation is really going to be tested. Although we have had a very welcome and positive debate today, the Government should not rest on its laurels. The potential community assets that we all want to see utilised, saved and taken forward will be the hard ones, and ministers should make sure that those hard miles are ready to be taken forward as well. Thank you very much, Mr Briggs. I now call on the minister to respond to the debate for around eight minutes or so. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking all members across the chamber for their contributions. I thought that this was an excellent debate, and it is of huge assistance to the Government in hearing these views as we undertake our review of the community empowerment act. I would invite members to engage with that process, which we will be running to the autumn of next year. Information is provided on the Scottish Government website, but I am happy to engage with any member directly who has an interest. The point that Mr Briggs raised in summing up his contribution was about the need effectively to scale up. I would note that Arianne Burr just said that communities are just getting started. While we take the opportunity to celebrate the successes of the past five years to recognise the challenges that we have to overcome, we should be incredibly ambitious, because our communities are ambitious. Indeed, with the community well-building model and land and property being one of the five pillars in so central, and it is something that we have perhaps more influence over in this Parliament than we do with the other pillars, that need to scale up in place community ownership through the asset transfer and other modes on a higher status. To be more ambitious with it is something that I very much welcome. The key point that I want to address is that everyone who has raised is a complexity of the process. We all recognise that the groups that have been successful in our communities have shown tenacity and often a capacity to pick themselves up after facing sometimes quite painful rejections of whether that be on funding or not feeling of making progress with the relevant public body. There is clearly work to do. Part of that is through learning. Part of that will be culture change in time as well. However, we need to be ambitious if we want to realise the full potential of asset transfer and community ownership. With regard to the actions that the Scottish Government is taking through our national asset transfer action group, we are working with partners, both communities, local, regional and national. I think that one of the key roles that that group can play and others can play and we can all play is ensuring best practice. I think that there is a point that Mr Sweeney raised with regard to support that can be provided by public bodies. That is important. Indeed, the Scottish Government provides support to the community ownership support service, which is delivered via DTAS. However, there is also tremendous amount of learning out there from community organisations that have successfully taken on ownership, so we want to be pairing up those who are perhaps at the start of our journey with those who already have some considerable experience. One of the things that I would want to highlight is a project that we embarked on last year. It was a hub and spoke project with the community ownership support service in Barmulach in Glasgow. The project was jointly funded by the Scottish Government and cost, and it was designed to explore whether an experience well-connected community anchor organisation could provide a different type of support to community groups in an area of disadvantage, considering asset ownership or management. In detail, it utilised local anchor organisation of Barmulach community development company to support 13 local community groups to engage with the asset transfer process, who otherwise might not have done so, helping them to develop their plans. BCDC staff offered hands-on free services, which included early advice and organisational structure, board responsibilities, capacity requirements, indicative costs, revenue earnings, sustainability, legal requirements and forward planning. The hub and spoke project has proved to be popular, and a proactive model has now been explored where BCDC could approach groups of ideas for future use of assets, enabling some of our most marginalised communities to take part. The learning from this is something that we are going to take on board as part of our review of the community empowerment act, but it is a great example of where communities have been through that process and can provide that peer support first-hand. I thank the minister for giving way, and I recognise that it is on what BCDC is doing with the Government to try to build that capacity. I bring him to the point about, for example, the regeneration capital grant fund simply being a reject or a reward, and that needs to be improved about helping organisations to get to a position where they can be successful in the future, rather than just simply being thrown back at them. That is something that is of concern to me. I just have to be very blunt. There is a capacity issue with planning, architecture and regeneration division, but we would just not have the means to engage directly with every organisation. We would encourage local authorities to partner with us to provide that support, but I am happy to consider ways in which we can provide more feedback, because I think that that is so important. Ultimately, my experience has been both as a constituency member and, since taking on that ministerial role, is that community organisations are not often the rejection that can be the most challenging or difficult part. It is not knowing or not understanding what the issues were, because it is, I appreciate, a continuous drive to improve and to bring bids back. That is something that I am very happy to take away and to consider more fully. However, we are starting from a very solid set of foundations. I think that that is something that we can build on. As we move into next year and as we begin the process of consulting on legislation around community wealth building with land and property being a key pillar for that, one of the things that I will be hoping to obtain out of the consultation is to identify what are the existing barriers to embedding and consolidating the community wealth building model, but also expanding that. While we have the review of the community empowerment act, which can be considered part 5 specifically, there is that opportunity to look more widely. One of the issues that has come up is that we provide capital support as often as capacity building support, which is required as well. Yes, that can be about providing information and signposting, but it also requires resource, revenue, and that is where our Empowering Communities programme comes in via strengthening communities of investing in communities fund. That speaks to the point about the need for a coherent joined-up approach. It is not enough just to award a pot of money. There has to be that capacity building, but that in itself can act as a catalyst and as an inspiration for other groups to go and take on assets. Fundamentally, there is no more powerful motivator or fill-up-to-action than seeing someone just like you take on an asset and make a new thing. We can do that ourselves. Our community can do that. It is fundamental to advancing this model and to realise the ambitions of scaling it up via community wealth building. Mr Briggs touched on community growing. I think that there is some really interesting work that we can do there in community wealth building around localising supply chains and looking at how we can partner that up. That is something that we are really keen to take forward. Alexander Stewart touched on a number of issues in his contribution. I am obviously very grateful for the work that the Local Government and Communities Committee did in the last session, which is informing our approach. He touched on the challenging process but also the importance of cultural change, which is significant. He made a reference to issues around arreals. That is something that I am alive to. We are having engagement with costs. Sometimes it can just be around issues around transparency, but fundamentally there should be nothing stopping arreals engaging within this process, and that is something that I am keen to explore further. The issue of planning appeals did come up. I would again just say with regards to planning appeals. The vast majority are decided by independent reporters out of perhaps less than 200 considerations last year. Only a handful came to ministers directly. Less than half that went to reporters were overturned, and we are talking less than 200 out of 27,000 planning decisions overall. The vast majority are taken by planning authorities. One of the key issues around community empowerment in the planning system is getting people involved far earlier in the process in shaping the development plan. Local place plans have a role to play in that, but that can be a much more effective way of ensuring that community's voices are heard early engagement at the beginning of the process. We have been finding ourselves in a situation where there is a challenge made at the end of the process when there is an application in. Collette Stevenson highlighted some of the examples from East Kilbride. I want to note that South Lanarkshire Council has been engaging with the Scottish Government and COS on setting up a knowledge network, which is very welcome. I also thank Collette Stevenson for her recognition of the community wealth-building model. I also want to recognise Mr O'Kane's contribution. We come from the same part of the world, and we all recognise his tremendous work that has taken place in Newstown. I could not possibly speak on asset transfer and not mention my good community development trust, who have done a huge amount of work. One of the issues that Mr O'Kane raised was something that Mary McCallum referred to in a previous debate around a detailed case worker. I think that one of the key things that we probably want to arrive at in terms of the 95 bodies is for a single point of contact. If I were on someone feeling that we are having to speak to multiple different individuals, that single point of contact you can provide the information that they require. How am I doing for time, Presiding Officer? You are coming towards the end of it, I would say. Okay, I had that feeling. Let me just bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying it. This has been a really helpful and stimulating debate. I am sorry that I cannot respond to everyone directly. I have been grateful for the opportunity to get out in about over the past 12 months and see some of those asset transfers in action and see the fantastic work that has taken place. This has been a really positive debate. Unfortunately, I am not able to support either of the Labour amendment that essentially removes the entire Government amendment and replaces it with something else. As the Conservative party will understand, the Scottish Government has deep reservations about the UK Government's approach to levelling up. However, having said that, I want to recognise the contribution that members have made across the chamber. I look forward to continued engagement going forward as we work to empower our communities. That concludes the debate on asset transfers and community empowerment five years on. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 7271, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on changes to next week's business. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am moved. Thank you. No member has asked to speak on the motion. The question is that motion 7271 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 7247.1, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, which seeks to amend motion 7247, in the name of Tom Arthur, on asset transfers and community empowerment, five years on, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to vote. There will be a brief pause to allow members to access digital voting.