Strategy for Enterprise
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1610, in the name of Wendy Alexander, on the strategy for enterprise, and on two amendments to that motion. Members who wish to contribute to the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I am delighted to outline the key points of "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks", which I launched on Tuesday. That document is the first comprehensive statement that the Executive, or the Scottish Office before it, has issued on what it wants the enterprise networks to deliver.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the way things used to be. In previous years, Administrations sent letters of strategic guidance to the enterprise networks. That guidance was usually no more than a ragbag of individual initiatives and ideas of what the Government would like them to do.
This document is different. We have listened carefully to Scotland's business leaders and they have told me what they need from the enterprise networks. They spoke and we listened. That is devolution delivering for Scotland.
In future, the action that we ask the enterprise networks to take will be different from what we asked of them in the past, because the world that we live in is different. Twenty years ago, Scotland suffered from boom and bust, mass unemployment, industrial restructuring and regional decline. For more than a generation, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which Labour set up in 1965, and the Scottish Development Agency, which Labour set up in 1975, struggled to cope with the pains of transition. Even following the merger with the Training Agency in 1990, training schemes too often existed simply to massage the unemployment figures.
That was then. Under this Government, we have a strong, stable economy. Unemployment is at its lowest level for a quarter of a century and more Scots are in work than have been for 40 years. The challenges for the future are different from the struggles of the past.
The key challenge is no longer that of countering mass unemployment, but to deliver full employment. No longer do we cling to the old ways; we are ensuring that all industries make use of new technology. No longer are we subsidising physical capital when supporting people can deliver more. Our macroeconomic stability gives us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deliver prosperity for all.
What are the three big priorities that we have given the enterprise networks? First, we must have more growing businesses in order to raise the sustainable growth rate of the Scottish economy. We need more start-ups, more e-business and more commercialisation of research and development. Those are important areas, but so are the key sectors where Scotland can lead globally. Already, we are showing what we can do to grasp leadership in biotechnology, optoelectronics and the creative industries.
The second priority is global connectedness. We have all worried about Scotland's peripheral position on the edge of Europe, but we can grasp the opportunities and benefit from the reductions in communication costs that follow changing technology.
I hope that all parties will welcome the addition of the digital agenda to the enterprise agencies' brief. We are asking Scottish Enterprise to work up a business plan with the private sector to increase the availability of broadband in Scotland. I will return to that issue later in my speech, but we already have broadband capability to Wick—the problem is with the prices charged by the telecommunications companies that operate there.
We need more competition as well as more wires and I am delighted that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, under Alex Neil, is examining how to deliver most efficiently not just broadband capability but cheap telecommunication services throughout Scotland.
Part of being globally connected is about building bridges to the world—not about building barriers within our own island or creating embassies for Scotland. Where it makes sense, we should work on our own, but, where appropriate, we should use the leverage of the entire network of UK embassies to target and promote Scotland abroad in tourism, trade and inward investment.
After worrying about building businesses and being globally connected, we come to the third priority. What do the people of Scotland want from their enterprise agencies? Above all, most people in Scotland want security, both for themselves and for their families. They want a job and would prefer a secure job. The Government is delivering for them, as unemployment is down from more than 300,000 to 100,000. We are making that work pay and, through the skills and learning agenda, we are making jobs secure.
Will the minister give way?
I will take an intervention in a moment.
For too long, skills and learning have been the poor relations in the enterprise networks. The spirit of the Scottish Development Agency has been stronger than that of the Training Agency. That will change—from now on, skills and learning will be at the heart of the work of the enterprise networks.
We have already announced the alignment of the careers service with the enterprise networks and the creation of a new future skills unit, which will be able to develop a better matching of supply and demand in Scotland's labour market. We got youth unemployment down by 73 per cent, but we must learn from those lessons and make those benefits available to all.
The minister talks about bringing youth unemployment down. Does she still stick to the answer that she gave me in a recent debate, when she said that a 13-week job is a sustainable job for a young person? Does she stand by the statement that a 13-week job is sustainable?
Nobody ever asked me whether a 13-week job is sustainable. I was asked whether the new deal is effective and I indicated the number of people who are getting sustainable jobs through the new deal. I do not want to use the debate to revisit the fact that the SNP did not support the new deal, which has brought about a 73 per cent reduction in youth unemployment in Scotland.
For a long time, many people have asked why the enterprise agencies are not more committed to the social justice agenda. I want to reassure those people that we have set the enterprise networks one of the most fundamental challenges of our social justice strategy—to narrow the gap between high and low unemployment areas. In Scotland, there are 112,000 claimants—a figure that nearly matches the number of vacancies, which is 100,000. We need to ensure that people are ready for tomorrow's jobs.
The report that was published by the Rural Development Committee earlier this week—"Report on the Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland"—recommends that Scottish Enterprise be given a social remit, as was Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Given the minister's comments, does she support that recommendation?
We said in the document that we published this week that we will adopt a whole new approach to the social economy. We will shortly announce our plans and I will be happy to talk to the member about them when we do.
I hope that the enterprise networks will learn to be good partners—with careers Scotland, with further and higher education institutions, with Scottish Homes, with local authorities, with businesses and with trade unions.
I will use my final couple of minutes to talk seriously about the amendments to the motion. The SNP amendment calls for three things. First, it calls for the Executive to bring forward "detailed proposals" for implementing our plans. We have set out our priorities. My question to the SNP—which Kenny MacAskill may answer—is this: does the SNP still call for the abolition of the boards of Scottish Enterprise and HIE, as was its policy before the last election? Does it want us to dispense with the services of Jim Hunter, Ian Robinson, Ian Vallence, Campbell Christie and others, who are involved in ensuring that the Scottish economy flourishes and that the enterprise networks play their part?
The second thing that the SNP asks us to do is consider the possibility of a dedicated telehouse for Scotland. I am happy to confirm that, for some months now, that possibility has been studied by Scottish Enterprise. We expect a business case to be presented by Easter.
The third thing the SNP asks is for me to promise broadband for all of Scotland. I ask Kenny MacAskill what that means. Does it mean broadband for every town, every business or every home? What would be the cost of such a commitment? As I have said, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is considering how we can have ubiquitous broadband capability, with the right technology, across Scotland. That is the way forward, but if Mr MacAskill would clarify whether he is talking about every town, business or home, and if he would tell us the cost, I would be grateful.
The Tory amendment calls on us to stimulate enterprise
"by reducing the bureaucracy which is currently stifling entrepreneurship".
Can the Tories please confirm whether that means that they support the proposals that Mr Portillo, the shadow chancellor, announced last week? When asked to find £8 billion of tax cuts, his answer included £1 billion from regional schemes, £300 million from trade and industry and £400 million from the new deal. I do not think that the way to cut out bureaucracy is to cut our enterprise networks.
I invite members to consider the document—"A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks"—that they have before them. I commend it to Parliament and I urge members, during the debate, to concentrate on what the enterprise networks should do, rather than simply use the debate as a platform for a constitutional argument that has been lost time and time again. In that co-operative spirit, I invite comments on the document and the ways in which we can support the activities of the enterprise networks.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication of A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks, the first ever comprehensive policy statement of what government expects from the networks, which sets out the foundation for long-term and sustained improvement in economic performance for all of Scotland; welcomes the determination of the Scottish Executive to work with the networks on the challenges of raising productivity, encouraging entrepreneurship, raising skill levels and connecting Scotland globally, and notes the Executive's commitment in setting the vision and direction for the networks to improve their focus and effectiveness.
It is rather surprising to be responding to a Labour speech on an Executive glossy brochure that posed more questions for the SNP than on the matters that we are debating. I will do my best with some of the points the minister raised, even though she was not prepared to take my intervention.
Despite the obsequious language of the motion, the Executive is to be commended for identifying the challenges facing Scotland as a nation in the 21st century. I would be surprised if anyone here disputes that the challenge to Scotland and to individual Scots is
"raising productivity, encouraging entrepreneurship, raising skill levels and connecting Scotland globally".
It is one thing to identify the tasks, however, and another to provide the framework and funding to implement them. That is why the SNP amendment was submitted. We are happy to unite behind the ideas that have been flagged up, but we do not want unity for unity's sake; we want unity of purpose. If the tasks that are rightly identified are to be implemented, there must be not just tactics but targets, not just rhetoric but resources. There is and must be consensus and co-operation on the economic viability of Scotland. Accordingly, our points are made to add to the vision, not to detract from it.
Raising productivity is essential for Scotland. We live in a global economy and no one owes Scotland a living. We may be geographically peripheral but that should not be an impediment. I quote from an article by Geoff Beattie in business a.m.
"There is a small northern European country with a population of about 5 million looking forward to a very prosperous year ahead.
Over the years it has been invaded, dominated and bullied by its bigger, brasher neighbour. It suffered a terrible recession, most locals called it a depression, ten years ago when GDP dropped by 13 per cent over three years. Since then it has transformed its largely state-run economy into the high tech envy of Europe. In the third quarter of last year it posted an annual growth rate of 5.6 per cent. It is, if anything, expected to be even higher this year."
That is not Scotland, or even Santa Claus land, but Finland. That is what Scotland must aspire to, but we cannot simply wish ourselves there. Practical steps must be taken. Entrepreneurship must be encouraged. For too long it was practised only by Scots absent from their native land. For too long the "I kent your faither" syndrome was prevalent. It is difficult to legislate for cultural change and that is, to some extent, what is required. The Parliament sets a tone that will hopefully resonate outwith, but it is not just the song—it is the singer. Too many people in the country are impeded in entrepreneurship by barriers to capital. If we want to support rather than just applaud such people we must ensure that the fuel that drives them is available. As a nation we must speculate to accumulate and the risk must be shared.
I have no doubt that there is consensus on raising skill levels. We are lagging in sector-specific skills. A once-proud engineering country, we now have too few employers and, notwithstanding the colleges and universities on their doorstep, too few available skilled employees. The electronics sector in Scotland has a shortage of skilled labour. In Finland, Nokia alone hires a third of the electronics and software engineering graduates from Tampere University of Technology—many in Scottish academia and commerce are envious. Identifying skill shortages is not enough—industries flagging up problems include oil and gas and financial services as well as electronics—they must be resourced.
The huge Scottish diaspora includes people driven from their native land through lack of opportunity as well as through desire for adventure. There are many Scots working in the financial sector in London and the oil and gas industries in the middle east. Why do we not do as our Irish cousins do and encourage our kith and kin to come home? When I asked a written question on the possibility of the Executive facilitating a trades fair to address skill shortages, as the Irish Government did, I was told that that was a reserved matter. If it is a reserved matter, why are we having the debate?
The minister raised the question of putting digital Scotland on the agenda. Just putting digital Scotland on the agenda is not enough—action is needed. BT says that one third of Scotland has no access to broadband. For the debate to be productive, the emphasis must be on telecommunications.
The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is carrying out an inquiry into the new economy. So far, the evidence indicates that there is a window of opportunity. That window is closing fast and we must move with alacrity. A European—indeed, global—superleague is in the offing not just in football, but in telecommunications. Frank Binnie from ScotlandIS told the committee that the south of England, Sweden and Ireland are off to that superleague. Scotland remains dormant in the telecoms SPL.
The SNP welcomes the fact that the minister has identified telecommunications as an area that must be addressed. However, identification must be followed by implementation. That is why the SNP is calling for a nationwide roll-out of increased bandwidth.
If Sweden can deliver full broadband services to every household and business, why can not we? The Executive says that cost is the reason. The problem is that we do not know the cost. That is why there must be an investigation. Indeed, as Graham Moore said to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, there must be a partnership between the private sector and government. The minister's job is to facilitate that partnership.
As Graham Moore pointed out, BT paid far more for its third generation telecommunications licences than it would cost to provide broadband to every household in Scotland. Two generations ago, a Labour Government, accepting that power and light were not only a citizen's right, but were essential to the sustainability and viability of the Highlands and Islands, created the Hydro-board—a dynamo for many communities. That social provision was seen as a right. Sadly, telecommunications and broadband are not seen as a right, but as a luxury, available only to the few. The technology that should liberate rural Scotland is being denied to it because of the area's peripheral nature. The fact is that air links are poor and expensive and ADSL is unavailable or unaffordable. Tom Johnston is rightly revered in households in the north of Scotland—Labour or otherwise—for what he did in the post-war years. Sadly, the minister is no Tom Johnston.
In summary, the intention is admirable, but the mechanism is absent. We agree on what is to be done, but we differ in that the SNP believes that there must be a framework to ensure that action is not simply discussed, but delivered. The minister can rest assured that we will co-operate in achieving those goals. However, we reserve the right to criticise constructively where we believe there are deficiencies. That is why I have lodged the amendment, to ensure that Scotland not only envies, but emulates Finland.
I move amendment S1M-1610.1, to leave out from "the first" to end and insert:
"calls upon the Scottish Executive to bring forward detailed proposals both for funding and implementing its plans regarding raising productivity, encouraging entrepreneurship and raising skill levels, and calls for a commitment, with regard to connecting Scotland globally, to roll out broadband communication services to all of Scotland within a defined timescale and to promote, in conjunction with the private sector, a dedicated Scottish Internet connector."
A debate entitled "Strategy for Enterprise" sounds hopeful, but the beguiling title is somewhat misleading when we read the motion, which
"notes the publication of A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks".
Although ambitions for the enterprise networks are laudable and are certainly supported by the Conservatives, they are not the whole story. The Conservative party not only established Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, but, in 1999, was the first political party in Scotland to call for a radical review of the whole enterprise network. The First Minister, who was then the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, derided that call. However, within days of rejecting that call, Mr McLeish had executed a U-turn, supporting a radical reappraisal of the enterprise network—perhaps that was when he began flexing his U-turn muscles in preparation for the future.
The further grand language of the motion suggests that the document is the
"first ever comprehensive policy statement of what government expects from the networks".
That is a rather extravagant claim. As I indicated, it was a Conservative Government that set up the enterprise network and gave clear direction as to why the Scottish Development Agency was obsolete, how the new enterprise network was to operate and what it was intended to achieve. To put matters into perspective, the minister is not quite the innovatrix and the motion is not quite the innovation that the Executive would have us believe.
A strategy for enterprise—worthy though a radical reassessment of the enterprise network may be—is not and never can be the sole consideration for what contributes to a strong enterprise economy. That is why my colleague David Davidson lodged the Conservative amendment.
Before an enterprise network can address anything, either collectively or through its component parts, certain ground rules must be in place. First, there must be a stable economy with a low taxation regime. I remind the minister that, since 1997, the tax burden has risen from 35.2 per cent of national income to 37.4 per cent in 2000. Since 1997, the business rate poundage has been 45.6 in Scotland and 41.2 in England.
Secondly, there must be a climate in which entrepreneurs can focus on business and not be distracted by, oppressed by, and in many cases overwhelmed by, the infuriating and irksome bureaucracy that currently clogs up our factories and offices. I remind the minister of the comment of Mr Jeremy Peat of the Royal Bank of Scotland, who called for "a bonfire of regulations".
We are having difficulty hearing what Miss Goldie is saying.
I am sure that Miss Goldie will come to it—at least I hope she will: what bureaucracy is meant by David Davidson's amendment when it refers to
"reducing the bureaucracy which is currently stifling entrepreneurship"?
What, specifically, does that mean?
There are many irksome regulations affecting business, some of which are unnecessary administrative burdens that could be removed. If Mr Rumbles is asking specifically about the sort of obligations that are currently making life difficult for business, examples would be compliance with the working time directive and many aspects of current employment legislation, which could be made a great deal simpler without in any way prejudicing the security of employees. If Mr Rumbles cares to go out of his constituency and speak to businesses, he will find no shortage of contributions on the bureaucracy that should be reduced.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am conscious of time, and I have tried to deal with the intervention.
The other essential ingredient for a good enterprise climate and economy is a working roads infrastructure. As the minister said, there is also a need for a leading-edge communications infrastructure. Finally—and this is extremely important—there is a need for an educational system that produces youngsters with a standard of education that makes them employable. It is a matter of regret to me that many business people lament the standard of product from many of our schools and regret that they must spend time in their businesses effectively re-educating those youngsters.
Unless those essential ingredients are in the mixing bowl, the enterprise network throughout Scotland can sit slouched in a chair with its legs on the desk. I will be pleased to hear the minister's comments on my points in winding up. I would not wish to appear negatively dissident about the document that states the ambitions for the networks. There are challenges, which it is right to identify, and they must be focused upon.
Minister, in relation to communications infrastructure, the business community is feeling inhibited. It is clear that there is a huge customer procurement power in the public sector. Co-ordinating and harnessing that asset as a purchasing influence could have a dramatic effect on provision. I would welcome the minister's comments on that.
In conclusion, there are fundamental issues that must be addressed before the enterprise network, or any aspect of it, has a chance to operate. If those issues are not addressed, the aspirations that are expressed in the document will remain just that.
I move amendment S1M-1610.2, to leave out from "the first" to end and insert:
"calls upon the Scottish Executive to play its part in stimulating enterprise in Scotland by reducing the bureaucracy which is currently stifling entrepreneurship and discouraging employment, and further calls upon the Executive to take a lead in facilitating the provision of a communications and roads infrastructure which will assist Scotland's business to develop."
I welcome the publication of the strategy document, which is one of many on the subject over the past 18 to 20 months. It highlights clearly the challenges that face the Scottish economy. The central challenge for us is to ensure that Scotland becomes a more competitive place in which to do business. The challenges are clearly about raising our productivity towards the level of our European partners and emulating the United States, which leads the world. That is one of the key issues if we are to increase wealth in Scotland.
To ensure that that comes about, we must create a culture of enterprise, a fact that is clearly laid out in the document. We must raise our skills base. That is fundamental if we want to close the productivity gap. No longer can we rely on a low-skill work force. We must re-skill our people if we want to raise productivity and become a more competitive place in which to do business. Lastly, we must also ensure that Scotland is connected globally and wired internally. That is vital to ensure that Scotland's economic growth continues.
Kenny MacAskill dealt with connectivity at length. It is part of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's inquiry into e-commerce. A number of hard questions must be answered before we start making commitments such as that which Kenny MacAskill called for. It would be interesting to cost that out. I suspect that it comes to a lot of money.
The key question from some of the evidence to the committee is whether Scotland needs a direct broadband pipeline to America. The committee has heard mixed messages on that. We heard from Frank Binnie last week. He made it clear that we need such a pipeline. BT, however, said that there is no need for it and that there is a huge amount of bandwidth available with the current connections and that the key issue is tariff barriers. We need to understand whether we must spend that kind of money to connect Scotland—
Will the member give way?
Certainly.
Does the member agree that when the south-east of England has decided that it is vital for its economy to get connected to the interconnector, and has gone ahead, it is of the same vital concern that Scotland gets connected, as Ireland too has done?
No. We received clear evidence that there is already a huge bandwidth capability across the Atlantic. The key issue is whether we should access that through London or construct an independent line. I do not think that the experts who gave evidence to the committee provided a clear message on that.
The evidence also raised questions about the infrastructure in which we should invest. Which technology should we adopt to capture some of the benefits of the new economy? The committee heard from BT, which said that ADSL is the best technology, as it would sweat the assets and use the existing infrastructure. Others told us of the need to place fibre optics around most of Scotland. I do not think that it will be possible to do that in rural areas, because of the high cost. The committee also heard that satellites might be able to link rural areas. A project on Islay is investigating how that might benefit such remote islands. I think that the answer will be that a mix of technologies is needed. I look forward to some definitive answers from the Scottish Enterprise study that is examining the issues.
As we are talking about how the enterprise networks can assist in the process, we should ask whether the public purse should be involved in delivering the infrastructure. Will the market deliver on its own? If demand is present in the central belt and the main urban areas, the market will deliver there. However, the market will not deliver in rural Scotland. Market failure there must be recognised. The public bodies will have to step in and make up the difference.
We are reasonably fortunate in the Highlands and Islands, because the partnership approach that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has piloted with BT has delivered significant benefits. If that is contrasted with the position in the south of Scotland, it is clear that we are well ahead of the game. The big issue is ensuring that we build on that success. Where do we go next? What partnerships are needed? Which technology will ensure that rural Scotland does not fall behind the game?
In the past few months, review after review and strategy after strategy have appeared. Robert Crawford has radically restructured Scottish Enterprise. It is now time for politicians to step back and let the professionals get on with delivering a better skilled, more enterprising and more competitive Scotland.
I call Alex Neil, convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
I will try to put into perspective what we are debating, which is—in the jargon—microeconomic policy in Scotland. However, the overall level of activity in the Scottish economy is determined to a large extent by macroeconomic policy. In the past 20 to 30 years—even when the rate of growth of the Scottish economy has been historically high—we have still not achieved the levels of growth in gross domestic product that have been reached elsewhere in the country.
This year, it is estimated that the UK economy will grow by about 3 per cent, whereas the Scottish economy will grow by about 2.5 per cent. That output gap has been consistent. If it did not exist, the Scottish economy would be worth £78 billion more than it is. One of the micro and macro policy challenges that we must meet is closing the growth gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
In recent speeches, I have concentrated on what is wrong with the Scottish economy—much has already been said about that today. As Kenny MacAskill rightly said, there is a broad consensus on the key challenges that face us. I want to address various issues that relate to the relationship between the enterprise network and our institutions of further and higher education, which are essential to achieving the objectives that are laid out in the Executive's document. I ask the minister to consider some specific points. She does not necessarily need to consider them today—tomorrow will do.
First, the new universities in Scotland are not getting a fair deal from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, especially in relation to funds for research and development. Indeed, I am told that since SHEFC was formed, it has funded the old institutions to the tune of about £1,000 million for research, while the new universities have received something in the order of £50 million. I was at Abertay University last Friday; the potential in many of our new universities is as great, if not greater, than that in our older universities. They are a huge intellectual resource of which we must try to make greater use. There is a specific issue about the research development grant that has been used to create research capabilities, especially in our new universities. The grant is due to come to an end next year. I ask the minister to consider, in consultation with SHEFC, the possibility of extending that programme. It has been extremely helpful in creating additional research capacity, which will allow us to compete in the future.
The next issue relates to research and development. To be fair, there have been a number of initiatives by Scottish Enterprise—some of them in budgets in the past couple of years—to encourage more research and development. However, we are still about 50 per cent short of where we need to be on research and development spending in order to compete effectively in the future. Indeed, Nokia in Finland—to which Kenny MacAskill referred—spends more on research and development than the whole Scottish economy. That is an indication of the scale of change that we require.
Just before Christmas, Ireland announced a major package of funding for biotechnology and information technology over three years, involving investment of the order of £500 million, compared to Scotland's £40 million investment in biotechnology over four years. The scale of investment must be increased substantially.
My final point is that one of the areas where we have major skill shortages—ironically, side by side with high unemployment—is graduate unemployment. Two matters need to be addressed. The first is the curricula in our universities—are we producing the right people to fill jobs in Scotland? The second issue relates to the careers service review. Will the minister consider the part that Duffner did not consider—the university careers services—which need to make a more substantial contribution?
In this, my first speech in the chamber, I support the Labour-led Executive's motion and the strategy outlined in the document "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks".
My welcome for what the minister has outlined is echoed by a number of organisations representing all strands of Scottish life. I note in particular the welcome that it has been afforded by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and its commendation of the priority that is given in the strategy to a high-skills, high-wage economy and the promotion of skills and learning.
One of the main objectives of the approach that is outlined in the statement is the raising of the employment rate throughout Scotland. As the member for Glasgow Anniesland, I wish to focus on that area of the strategy. Success in that area is an essential prerequisite in redressing what my illustrious predecessor, Donald Dewar, rather quaintly but correctly called the imbalance in the "social arithmetic" of Scotland.
It is true that youth unemployment is at its lowest since 1986 and that long-term unemployment generally is at its lowest since the mid-1980s. That is due, I believe, to Labour-led government, both here and at Westminster. In Drumchapel in my constituency, there has been an 11 per cent drop in the number of people who leave school without employment. However, I am aware, as Donald Dewar was aware and as we are all aware, that much remains to be done—a clichéd phrase but one that is still pertinent. There are pockets of my constituency where the fall in unemployment has been neither as steep nor as rapid as I and we all wished.
Full employment must be the aim of any progressive left-leaning Government. I welcome the document's commitment to providing access to high-quality learning and skills development and its acknowledgement that we need to offer vocational and high-level technical and IT skills to hasten the creation of more jobs and to compete in an increasingly global economy. Allowing people to add to their existing skills and gain additional qualifications is essential to the creation of a more prosperous and more socially and economically just Scotland. That is especially true in respect of women workers and manual workers.
Training and retraining must be flexible and imaginative and requires a multi-agency approach with networks working in partnership. I shall give an example of such an approach in my constituency. In Drumchapel, a programme that seeks to develop an enterprise culture—developed by Drumchapel Opportunities and supported by the local social inclusion partnership, Glasgow City Council, the European regional development fund and Scottish Enterprise Glasgow—had, by the end of 2000, assisted in the development of 25 new businesses, developed a women into self-employment course and progressed a pilot programme that focuses on self-employment with placements for local high school children. I am glad to say that Drumchapel Opportunities has a digital learning centre, which has been adopted by the Executive as the flagship learning centre for learndirect Scotland. I am equally pleased to say that it is used by more than 150 Drumchapel residents per month and rising.
Those are only steps towards full employment and towards the better society that we all believe in. As the new member for Anniesland, I recognise that they are only the first steps, but they are achievements. They are achievements that I am proud of; my predecessor would have been, too.
That was a perfect three minutes and 59 seconds. Thank you, Mr Butler.
I do not commit myself to achieving a similarly perfect time for my speech, Presiding Officer.
I knew that "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks" had come from Wendy Alexander as soon as I opened it and saw the requisite Venn diagram, this time on page 16.
I have a general comment to make about Scottish Enterprise. I very much welcome Robert Crawford's joining that organisation at the helm and I have great confidence in his dynamism and desire to change the organisation. One of the things that needs to change is the way that Scottish Enterprise has reached out to business. I know that many members will have attended Scottish Enterprise events or local enterprise company events. One of the things that has always struck me about those events is that there is never anybody there but people who already have a relationship with a LEC. That is why I must dispute slightly what the minister said about members of the public. I do not think that many members of the public know what Scottish Enterprise is and what their LEC is doing. In the past, Scottish Enterprise has been a rather inward-looking organisation.
I want to concentrate on digital connectivity. I heard what Kenny MacAskill said during the debate and what he said the last time that we had roughly the same debate. However, the SNP must present a detailed proposal if it wants broadband to be provided out of the public purse. It is an option. As Kenny MacAskill said, it has been done in Sweden with public money, but that was a conscious decision. The SNP will have to identify where the money would come from.
For a long time, I have been ploughing the furrow of what is generally known as demand creation. I believe, as we have heard in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee inquiry, that that is the way forward. For once, or for always, I do not agree with George Lyon—now is not the time for politicians to step back. I believe that this is the time for politicians to step forward, with what I think will be a very productive report by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. One of its conclusions will be to show the scope of the public sector's role. That role is not to dish out money for somebody to do something in the traditional way, but to channel procurement to create the demand that will justify private sector investment. Indeed, the evidence that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has received so far has established clearly that various public sector organisations are operating in a stovepipe way and do not know who else in their community is procuring bandwidth. The health service, for example, might not know that a school is being connected at the same time as the health service is putting in a link between hospitals.
We must have a strategic overview, so that public sector usage, in its widest sense—including universities, which in my opinion have excess capacity that should be freed for wider public use—can be used with revised procurement processes to create demand. I cite the example—which I have used before—of the state of Virginia, which has successfully done what I described.
I agree with George Lyon on one point—there is no single answer. The issue of connectivity with the United States and other parts of the world is complicated. There is no single answer on tariffs either. Both are broad issues.
The Parliament has moved forward, particularly due to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's investigation and due to the minister's willingness to address the issues.
First, I welcome some of Alex Neil's comments about the importance of the new universities in carrying this agenda forward. As someone who worked in a new university for a long period of my life, I am particularly aware of the importance of the new universities' research activities and of their role in contributing to skills development. In that context, I want to highlight in particular the new universities' concern about the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's proposals on how research money is likely to be allocated, which could lead to a deterioration in the situation. That is an issue of some concern in the context of the thrust of the strategy.
The strategy is, however, to be welcomed, perhaps even more so because of the strong commitment that the minister has given to advancing Scotland's economic performance. It is justifiable to claim that the Labour party has been instrumental in the past in modernising Scotland's economy. Annabel Goldie made reference to the Conservatives' record in that respect, which was in interesting contrast to the Conservatives' occasional forgetfulness about the past. Labour can claim to have made a big step forward with the establishment of the SDA. More particularly, we can now claim that a Labour Government at Westminster has, by strengthening the Scottish economy, created the foundation that allows us to take forward the intervention agenda that the minister has laid out.
However, I hope that the minister will forgive me for highlighting the fact that the level of prosperity that now exists in Scotland has not been delivered evenly throughout the country—there are communities in very different circumstances. My constituency is a case in point. Clydebank has suffered considerably from the decline in traditional industries. Although efforts have been made by local agencies to bring in new employment to replace jobs that were lost, there are barriers to overcome. I hope that those will be addressed as part of the implementation of the new strategy.
Four challenges for Scotland are laid out in the document: improving productivity; raising the rate of new business foundation; development and better matching of new skills and opportunities; and embracing of the digital age. Those are not challenges for only Scotland in general; they are challenges for Clydebank in particular. If they can be taken forward in Clydebank, they will make some of the greatest differences that can be made across Scotland. The approach that we have to take is not to talk about Scotland incorporated, but to address local needs and circumstances.
West Dunbartonshire has the lowest percentage of people gaining further and higher education qualifications. It has one of the highest rates of unemployment and the lowest business birth rate in the UK. Consistent action is required to change that. Action to deal with the problems in that area must not be left to the local enterprise company; it must be embraced by Scottish Enterprise, Robert Crawford and Wendy Alexander.
I recognise the importance of thinking globally, but we should not underestimate the importance of acting locally. We can see the greatest achievements at local level. As with Bill Butler's area, there are several interesting projects in my area that are making a big difference to people in local communities. Those projects are adding value by giving people opportunities to learn computer skills and other relevant skills. We must ensure that local initiatives are linked to the national initiative and the national strategy to ensure that we deliver at all levels, so that we create a Scotland where every person has the opportunities that we would like them to have. That should be a key task of the joint performance teams that the minister is creating.
I should begin by congratulating the Scottish Executive and Wendy Alexander—who, it would appear, has just joined the Tories—on her contribution to encouraging enterprise in Scotland. The printing sector must be experiencing boom times, given the number of glossy documents that the Government produces.
We must remember that the Scottish economy is diverse and that different companies in different areas have different needs. My understanding is that the priorities in the document are supposed to be the priorities of the enterprise networks, but those will not always be in tune with what other people believe should be the priorities of the networks. It is important that we do not take our eye off the ball; we must not become obsessed with the priorities in this document. After all, the LECs' purpose is to create jobs. Too often, especially in rural Scotland—which I will talk about for a few moments—enterprise companies spend their time retraining people who have been made redundant by other companies. That highlights a significant problem.
The Minister for Rural Development has no cash to play about with in this Government. He is responsible for 0.65 per cent of the total Scottish budget and he has discretion over only 20 per cent of that 0.65 per cent, so our rural communities are dependent on the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning making the right decisions to help generate jobs in rural communities.
We must not take our eye off the ball as far as our traditional industries are concerned: agriculture; fisheries; our food industries; and the many smaller businesses in rural Scotland have other priorities. The digital agenda is important and will help those industries to export goods and become globalised. Another priority is to address European regulations that are being introduced, such as the urban waste water directive, the climate change levy—coming from Westminster—and the integrated pollution, prevention and control regulations. They pose a risk to many jobs in fragile communities. Those matters all place our rural industries at a competitive disadvantage. What is the document going to do to address those priorities, which are shared by many of our rural companies?
The paper industry is going through enormous difficulties; what will the strategy do to help it? Even as we speak, thousands of jobs are on the line, many of which are in rural areas. For example, the Donside Paper Co in Aberdeen recently shed more than 100 jobs. Inveresk expects to make a £10 million loss this year, which puts more jobs on the line. Since Labour was elected in 1997, only £4 million has been invested in that industry. How will the strategy help such industries?
I will turn briefly to infrastructure. In the north-east of Scotland, Grampian Enterprise spends all its time talking about the lack of a decent transport infrastructure in the area. Of course, such issues are outlined in the strategy document; however, Grampian Enterprise's No 1 priority is to sort out that infrastructure so that existing companies in the area can survive and prosper. For example, the big issue at the moment is the gridlock in the city of Aberdeen, which is causing enormous problems; that is the current priority for those companies. Although the Government has come up with cash to improve the M74, not one penny has been spent on the western peripheral route or other transport improvements in the north-east.
The Scottish Government should take a lead in Scotland's massive offshore industry, which is also important to the north-east. The Government is responsible for improving the skills base and education in the north-east—those are not reserved matters. The Government in Scotland should lead on initiatives such as LOGIC and PILOT, which help the offshore industry, because it has its hands on the levers of the issues that matter.
The document is entitled "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks". If the minister wants us to be smart, successful and ambitious, she should be fighting for Scottish independence to give us the power to create a real enterprise culture in this country.
Bill Butler mentioned the Labour-led Executive. As Bill is relatively new to the chamber, I should point out to him—if he is listening—that the Executive is a partnership between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who are working together in a progressive government.
Will the member give way?
Give me a minute to start—I have been speaking for only 25 seconds.
On the basis of recent evidence, is not the Executive led by Mr Rumbles?
That was a nice try, but it really did not work.
The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are working together in a progressive Government for Scotland. I do not recognise the left-right distinctions that Bill Butler used. I prefer to think progressively.
The Liberal Democrats view skills and learning as the key drivers of economic development. That policy can be seen clearly in the partnership agreement and the programme for government that we debated this morning. Such a strategy would be welcomed widely by business. As Iain McMillan, the director of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, said in his 2001 new year message:
"We need to build on the success of 2000 in delivering an economic and legislative environment, which will enable business in Scotland to prosper and thrive for the benefit of all our communities."
In that respect, the Liberal Democrats, working together with the Labour party, are implementing the recommendations of the McCrone report, which will work towards the CBI's key objective. Iain McMillan also said:
"Developing further our education system will be the biggest single factor in driving forward Scotland's competitiveness in the global digital economy."
How very true.
In our manifesto, we made a commitment to
"review the operation of local enterprise companies to promote greater openness, accountability and effectiveness. We will ask Audit Scotland to devise appropriate output indicators."
In many respects, the strategy for enterprise delivers on those commitments; and although Audit Scotland is not involved, the joint performance team will give the Government a stronger role in laying down and monitoring targets. That is even better.
I challenged Annabel Goldie about the Conservative amendment in the name of Mr David Davidson, who will perhaps address my points in his winding-up speech. The amendment refers to
"reducing the bureaucracy which is currently stifling entrepreneurship".
I asked which specific bureaucracy was meant.
It is kind of Mr Rumbles to give way. Since 1997, the Labour Government has introduced slightly more than 3,600 items of business regulation, but has de-listed only a few. I do not have time to list the 3,600, but broad rafts of them—mostly concerned with employment—could be simplified.
Come on.
On 27 November, Ms Alexander made a pledge, about which I shall ask her later.
You are in your final minute, Mr Rumbles.
Yes. Thank you. I will not give way like that again. David Davidson could use his own speech to outline some of those points—I hope that he will do so instead of avoiding the issue.
The Conservatives are almost fearful of having anything at all to do with Europe. Annabel Goldie—I am glad to see that she has returned to the chamber—could identify only the working time directive. That just goes to show the worth of the Conservative party's anti-European rhetoric.
To conclude, I bring to the attention of the minister an issue that Richard Lochhead mentioned in an intervention. The Rural Development Committee was unanimous in calling for legislation to broaden the remit of Scottish Enterprise, to bring it into line with that of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and to give it a social as well as an economic element. That action alone could do a huge amount to help to develop entrepreneurship in rural Scotland outwith the Highlands and Islands. I hope that the minister will address that.
The word "sustainability" occurs in the diagram on page 16, but that is all that is mentioned of sustainability and the environment in the Executive document. I register my disappointment at that fact.
The minister spoke of partnerships. I draw her attention to the Midlothian business and environment partnership, which draws in young students from all over Scotland during the six-week holidays from their courses and gives them placements in local firms. Their remit is to conduct environmental audits of the way in which those firms conduct their business, then to suggest to the firms improvements that they could make. Over the past couple of years, several hundred firms and many hundreds of students have benefited from the scheme. Indeed, significant progress was made by one firm—the student who was attached to it managed to increase its turnover by £60,000 during the six weeks when she was there.
That is the kind of environmental partnership that I would like to be drawn to our attention in the Executive document—which the minister is vainly perusing for any further mention of the words "environmental sustainability".
They are mentioned three times.
Three times. Gosh. I am so pleased.
I have a couple of points that I hope the minister will address in her summing-up. First, over the next year, will she flesh out what she intends by attaching to this document the word sustainability, with no further reference to what she understands by it or what she proposes to do to encourage businesses in Scotland to take advantage of the enormous progress that they could make by addressing their environmental impact, thereby becoming more efficient and profitable? I would like the minister to give a commitment on that.
Secondly, I draw the minister's attention to the fact that, in the document, she does not highlight the important opportunities that are afforded to Scotland by the development of renewable energy resources. I shall bring that matter to her attention next Thursday—I give her advance notice of that—and hope that there will be somebody from the enterprise and lifelong learning department in the chamber to listen to what I have to say.
I welcome the document, which shows that we are taking another step towards transforming the economic future of Scotland and moving towards having a high-skill, high-wage economy that is globally competitive and promises a prosperous future for all.
As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I am particularly pleased that that committee's inquiry informed and drove forward the network review that has led in part to "A Smart, Successful Scotland" which has a welcome focus on the challenges of raising productivity, encouraging entrepreneurship, developing skills and improving digital communications. The document is also evidence of democracy in action as a result of the Scottish Parliament. The move towards ensuring that the priorities of the enterprise agencies are discussed and debated will mean that they become more accountable in their use of their £0.6 billion of funding.
I am pleased that, in the section that deals with encouraging people to be more entrepreneurial, not only is the need to drive up the business start-up rate acknowledged, but the need to encourage more female entrepreneurs is recognised. Tomorrow, I am opening a new business in Mastrick in Aberdeen that was set up by a local woman who spent years working for other people before deciding that she could do it better herself.
The document has a clear focus on skills and skill shortages. In a way, we are in an enviable position, as not so long ago we had major problems with unemployment. As Bill Butler said, there are still major pockets of high unemployment that we need to tackle. A good start has been made. We need to enable people without jobs to develop the skills that we are short of.
It has been suggested that far too few people who are in work are undertaking continuing learning and skills development. We have in place a raft of activities that will assist, such as individual learning accounts, the much-improved student support package, learndirect Scotland and the modern apprenticeships. All will help. The review of the careers service will give us all-age career development, which is absolutely necessary as we move jobs so often. I look forward to the setting up of the future skills unit, which will identify the gaps now and in the future. All sorts of jobs are appearing now that did not exist before.
Communications have been mentioned today. Richard Lochhead talked about transport infrastructure, but to get rid of the congestion in all our cities—not just Aberdeen—we need an integrated transport strategy and not just a focus on roads.
We need to ensure maximum connectivity to enable us to join the digital world. As others have said, however, we should not come up with simplistic answers. We need to examine the issue correctly as it is complex and many elements of the issue are to do with pricing rather than capacity.
I thank the minister and the printers of this document for increasing my linguistic understanding of the master of business administration qualification.
The document says:
"Entrepreneurship is not simply for the established and the educated, but for everyone. If an idea will make a living, let alone a fortune, it should be encouraged."
I want to speak about a Scottish industry that has failed to be encouraged and that is and always has been at the cutting edge of information technology by nature of what it sells and of the hardware: the music industry.
If we believe the minister's statement that
"Too few of our existing firms reach global status and too few people back good ideas with action",
there is an absolute requirement for a manufacturing base for our music industry. That would also provide a manufacturing base for the development of what is often referred to as our film industry—although the reality is that we have no film industry, just an ad hoc collection of movies made in this country with foreign money.
Our music industry is an integral part of the economy but we do not exploit it as much as we could. I urge the minister to meet at the earliest possible opportunity the people from DigMedia, an international company in Edinburgh whose headquarters are in El Paso, who are at the cutting edge of MP3 technology. DigMedia agrees with the SNP amendment's call for a "dedicated Scottish Internet connector."
There are good reasons for a dedicated interconnector. The principal interconnector for Europe is currently based in Reading and could be subject to any number of natural disasters. Indeed, due to the recent floods, the Intel centre recently came close to going out of operation. The centre also suffers potential threats from the over-demands on energy from the greater London area.
DigMedia, along with other companies that deal particularly with MP3 technology and the new broadband technology, would urge the minister to seek out a partnership to create a server centre here in Scotland. More important, the clean-technology buildings that are lying mothballed in the Borders would be an absolutely perfect CD and DVD manufacturing base that would save our nascent film makers and musicians money and time. At present, they are wasting their time having their products made into a saleable form in other countries.
In its merger talks with America Online, Time Warner made it clear that its two CD and DVD plants here in Europe will be up for sale at a knock-down price. On behalf of the Scottish music industry, I urge the minister to make the quickest possible attempt to draw together Scottish Enterprise and Scottish entrepreneurs to provide a manufacturing base for our CD and DVD industry. That could provide much-needed jobs in the Borders.
I will try to bring a north Highland perspective to what has been said today. I will start with three points that I know to be important for the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network. The first is the importance of strengthening remote Highland communities—which is why HIE receives funding that Scottish Enterprise does not. Linked to that is the social role that HIE plays—I need go no further.
Secondly, global connection is an important objective, but we have to remember the cost for the HIE and local enterprise company networks, relating to distance and to the difficulty of getting through the hill, as it were. The Scottish Executive must not forget that.
The third point is the importance of very small businesses in the Highlands and Islands—as is the nature of the economic base there. We must not take our eye off that ball.
Having made those three points from the HIE network perspective, I turn to the minister's opening remarks. She rightly mentioned her three key points: the importance of growing businesses, global connections and security for people in work. Skills and education underpin everything the minister is trying to achieve. It is a question of maximising that. At the same time, however, we must not forget that we in the north Highlands are out in the sticks and that it cannot only be a matter of skills and education in Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dundee.
We have to be careful about how we manage our efforts. This is not the Executive's fault, but I have made considerable play recently of the Scottish Agricultural College's proposal to close its small veterinary laboratory in Thurso. That lab is a key skills resource. Such action appears to fly in the face of everything the minister and all right-thinking people in Scotland are trying to do. A holistic approach has to be taken. I acknowledge that that will not be easy for the minister—she almost needs eyes in the back of her head. It will require banging heads together to ensure that her laudable aims are reflected in what other bodies do. It would be a bad thing for the minister's intentions not to be met because of failures on other fronts.
The document's ministerial foreword mentions
"the confidence to embrace . . . change".
It also mentions "self-belief". That is what it is about. For too long, we in this country have sold ourselves short and have not believed in ourselves. We do believe in ourselves: we have a Parliament here today. Here we are. The confidence from this Parliament can go out and help send out this same message to the Scottish people. People who are starting a small business in the Highlands—or in the Borders, Glasgow, Aberdeen or wherever—should have the courage to do it. The Executive is with them—they should just have the courage.
I will close now, as I want to hear what the other closing speakers have to say, Mr Duncan Hamilton in particular.
We had a characteristically elegant speech from Mrs Goldie—Miss Goldie, I am sorry—of the Conservatives. We heard William Hague's policy on the euro. That was not unexpected, but it was expressed eloquently. Mr Mundell chose his strong ground on all things electronic.
To give credit where it is due, from the SNP we heard a superb speech from Alex Neil, and Lloyd Quinan made an impassioned argument on the music front. I am looking for Duncan Hamilton to correct the imbalance on the Highlands and Islands, as we have not heard much good news and constructive argument on the Highlands and Islands.
Earlier today, inadvertently and in a moment of madness, farmer Fergus Ewing dropped a colossal brick. By his action, he has managed to stall a million pounds-worth of grants. I have here a press release on the matter from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Duncan Hamilton must talk about the Highlands and he must get Mr Ewing to change his mind and remove the blockage to the scheme. If he cannot do that, he must dissociate himself, on behalf of his party, from Mr Ewing.
We welcome the fact that the minister recognises the priorities for action and the needs that have to be addressed. We also welcome the recognition in the document of the value of wealth creation—something for which we have often been abused in the chamber for pursuing. However, there are major problems. There is no evidence in the document of any proposed action that has a time scale and a budget line. I will return to that issue later.
The new deal has been mentioned. I think that everybody recognises that about 80 per cent of the jobs that have been created through the new deal would have happened anyway. I would like the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to come clean and admit that the macroeconomic stability that the Executive talks about was inherited. The Executive received a golden inheritance, which has not quite gone off, but we should not think that that stability started in 1997.
Kenny MacAskill and others have discussed the skills base. I think Alex Neil talked about upping the skills base. We cannot fast-track from a low skills base and meet the demands of the industries that want to invest in the short term. We need a programme to fast-track people who already have reasonable skills so that we can attract investment. That does not mean neglecting people who need help.
The document refers to workforce training. Employers, rather than learndirect Scotland, provide that training. Sometimes, employers are a bit upset that that fact is neglected.
I am puzzled about something. I refer to William Hague's recent announcement about a cut in the Department of Trade and Industry's budget. What is the proportionate cut in the Scottish Enterprise budget that would result from that cut in the DTI budget?
Given that the Scottish Enterprise budget comes out of the block grant, that was not a clever question.
I return to the issue of Government leadership. The Government should act as a brokerage agent to make the private sector want to participate—that is hinted at in the document, but there is not enough detail. Jamie Stone talked about confidence. The private sector does not have enough confidence in the structures or in what the Executive is saying. Employers want something far more significant than what we have had so far.
Will the member give way?
In a moment.
Would the—
I said that I would give way in a moment.
Unfortunately, the document makes no mention of the removal of Government interference. However, it says that
"It is business and people, not governments, which lead productivity growth."
Therefore, I presume that the minister agrees that we do not want the heavy hand of Government, but instead want Government to expedite things.
There is no mention of the removal of red tape, which the minister said on 27 November she would address and which was a Labour party policy.
Will the member give way? He said I could do so in a moment.
It has not come yet.
On page 19, there is talk of partnership working, but neither the document nor the minister have said what the Government will bring to the party. Many people have talked about entrepreneurship—I recommend the helpful new centre on that at the Robert Gordon University. All the Government burdens that Mr Rumbles wants to debate deflect the focus of the small entrepreneurial businesses in Scotland, which spend far too much time on administration and not enough on the creativity that we are trying to promote.
We welcome the decentralised approach to Scottish Enterprise, but does that mean that the minister is removing responsibility from the Executive?
Please wind up, Mr Davidson.
Alex Neil's point—
Will the member give way?
The member is closing, Mr Rumbles.
I discussed with the minister last night the point that Alex Neil made about the SHEFC's approach to funding. I hope that, when the review comes up in a couple of years' time, she will take on board the necessity of dealing with that issue and of examining how to use the applied sciences as a resource to drive our economy forward.
Scotland needs small government, as only small government will allow our businesses the freedom to prosper, to do their own thing and to take risks.
Will the member give way?
Please come to a close, Mr Davidson.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer—there is a bit of a disturbance in the chamber.
Yes, I can hear it.
We do not know how the minister copes with the Liberals.
The minister's document does not go far enough. If we are to get the economy that we need and deserve, she must enter into a better debate about how she is going to assist business to help itself.
I immediately risk spontaneous combustion by saying that much of the document is good and deserving of praise. The debate has been interesting and a number of questions that require answers from the Executive have been asked.
Lloyd Quinan has finally laid to rest the suggestion that the Scottish National Party never comes up with positive and specific proposals, as he made three such proposals.
In response to the question that Jamie Stone put to me, I say to my good friends on the Liberal benches that, first, it is not within my power to change the mind of anyone whose surname is Ewing and, secondly, I would not be minded to do so in any event. Fergus Ewing attempted to stand up for those people who will lose out under the less favoured areas scheme. As he is a Highland member, that is exactly what he should be doing.
It would be difficult to disagree with the view that productivity, entrepreneurship, skills match and digital connections, which are covered in the document, are key areas. On business start-up, the minister might find it useful to understand the complexity and the depth of the problem in Scotland.
In its economic briefing note for January 2001, the Royal Bank of Scotland said:
"Scotland's low business birth rate and relatively low level of business research and development have been persistent and long running problems. Scotland's business birth rate has deteriorated relative to that of England in recent years. In 1994, the difference between new businesses as a percentage of adult population in Scotland and England stood at 8.52 per cent."
That figure has now risen to 11.2 per cent. Not only is the position not encouraging, the disparity north and south of the border causes real concern. I commend to the minister more measures to try to target business start-up as an absolute priority.
Access to capital came up during the debate, although, on that point, the debate was not developed as it should have been. An absence of will from politicians and political parties to urge people in Scotland to become more entrepreneurial or to take more risks is not one of our problems. However, we have a problem when it comes to accessing capital to make that a reality. Our attitude is conservative—with a small c—in comparison with that of the United States or other countries. That attitude prevails not only in government, but in our banking sector—but perhaps the responsibility for that is not the Government's alone and I hope that the message will go out from this debate that we need more radical thinking and more risk taking.
A number of good points have been made about skills shortages. I suggest to the minister that we should embrace some of the measures that are proposed in the document for the careers service and the future skills unit, which bode well. However, we could do a lot more than that. For example, when some countries receive foreign direct investment—one of the few areas that continued to expand throughout the global downturn—they manage to embed learning in a way that we may not have managed to achieve. When a company leaves such a country, another company is more than likely to be attracted to the same country for the simple reason that skills are embedded in the population. That issue must be considered further.
The Executive may find it worth considering yesterday's debate on access to education, during which I pointed out the economic spillover from education.
The Finnish example has already been mentioned. The Finnish Minister for Education gave an excellent speech, which ended with the following:
"For a small nation to maintain a high-quality higher education system, its Government needs to make a heavy investment in it, since external funding from business and industry is not nearly as easy to obtain as in bigger national economies."
The paper concludes that
"this is still the only survival strategy for a small nation".
To address our skills shortages, we should give more thought to investment.
A key issue in this debate has been the need to expand broadband telecommunications. That is vital. People have spoken about the Highlands and Islands and the absence of ADSL from many areas. Richard Lochhead made the fair point that we cannot just consider the new developments in the economy: we have also to consider the infrastructure so that business can deliver. It is crucial that the kind of action that we have seen in countries such as Sweden is replicated across the board.
David Mundell made an excellent point about the need not just to respond to demand but to create demand. That is absolutely correct. However, I must contrast our position with that of Ireland. In January, the Irish minister announced 11 pilot projects on the west coast and in the more rural parts of Ireland, specifically to create demand. That is a proactive measure that we could learn from. I suggest that the minister may want to do similarly.
I want to make a final point about Scotland in the global community. Throughout the document, the Executive makes great play of the fact that Scotland has to compete in a global community. The whole point of the SNP's amendment is to get that dedicated Scottish internet connector. Whether that is done directly, through Ireland, through the European Union, or however, it will be a vital driver of future Scottish economic growth. Without it, the effect of most of the good intentions and plans in the document will be truncated.
I am delighted to close this debate and to emphasise the importance of "A Smart, Successful Scotland" across the whole country. As well as responding to members' points, I will reiterate the key themes of the document, which have been comprehensively discussed this afternoon in a Highlands and Islands context.
My friend Kenny MacAskill referred to a target set in Finland for participation in further and higher education. The target is in the region of 60 or 65 per cent. Mr MacAskill mentioned that figure on television earlier this week and again during yesterday's debate on the graduate endowment. Yesterday, we heard another eulogy of all things Finnish.
I am sure that we all agree with the aspiration to lifelong learning. Its importance underpins the participation target that Finland is committed to. Although it is important that we learn from what is happening in other countries, we should not underplay the considerable success that we are achieving here in Scotland. I will cite a few examples. A total of 51 per cent of school leavers from state schools in Scotland go on to further or higher education, a trend that is steadily increasing. The participation rate for young people in higher education is 47 per cent, double that of 10 years ago. It is worth repeating that in Scotland 75 per cent of the population will, at some time in their lives, take up a higher education opportunity. The figure in Finland is 70 per cent.
We recognise that more needs to be done. That is why we have committed funding for additional places at colleges and higher education institutions. As my colleague Nicol Stephen said yesterday, a new package of support will be available for those entering higher education from the autumn. We are reintroducing bursaries, reducing debt and targeting help at those who are most in need. I hope that that will reassure Mr MacAskill—and I hope that he will start focusing on Scotland and dispense with his obsession with the kingdom of Finland.
George Lyon and a few other members rightly mentioned the importance of raising our skills base. Mr Lyon spoke about the broadband connection and rightly said that it is not a lack of access that is disadvantaging Scotland, but the cost. The answer, of course, is to encourage more telecoms companies into the market. That is exactly what Wendy Alexander will be doing on Monday when she meets major companies.
George Lyon also suggested that all we have had is review after review. I assure him that there will be no further reviews until after 2003. I am sure that that statement will encourage him. Perhaps more important, it will encourage the professionals working in our networks.
The convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee raised the question of research funding in the old and new universities.
I am about to respond to points that Mr Neil raised in the debate, if he will give me a moment. Research funding is allocated to the universities with proven research skills, which tends to be the older universities, but we also want to help the new universities build up their research capability, so we need to balance quality and new opportunity. Wendy Alexander intends to review that sensitive matter to ensure that our approach is right.
Order. There are too many conversations going on; it is unfair to the minister.
Mr Neil asked whether the Executive will review university career services. That is largely a matter for the universities, but we expect a high standard of those services and expect careers Scotland to set that standard.
Bill Butler gave examples from Glasgow Anniesland to emphasise the importance of continuing to pursue the aim of full employment. We are almost within touching distance of full employment—it is firmly back on the agenda.
I am not giving way. I must try to respond fully to other members.
We recognise the concerns Des McNulty raised about unemployment in Clydebank. I assure him that there will be consistent action to address unemployment in that area. Robin Harper, correctly, raised the issue of sustainability. At last night's meeting of the cross-party oil and gas group, which was addressed by Wendy Alexander, the group agreed that the industry should take up opportunities to look at environmentally sensitive technologies.
I am endeavouring to make progress. I recognise Mr Neil's enthusiasm, but I have responded to his point.
Give way.
Order. The minister is not giving way.
The enterprise networks are the agents of change to ensure that the Highlands and Islands can continue to prosper in the future. To achieve that, "A Smart, Successful Scotland" sets out the overall mission for the enterprise networks. It includes growing businesses, global connections and skills and learning. Each is equally important and vitally relevant to the Highlands and Islands.
I believe strongly that the economic future of every part of the Highlands and Islands needs a blend of new, growing and established companies, which together can stimulate a vibrant economy, creating opportunities for jobs, new product development, inventiveness and prosperity. Highlands and Islands Enterprise is already pursuing that agenda. This strategy document, with the targets to be set by the joint performance team, will further advance our agenda for the Highlands and Islands.
The worldwide revolution in new technology continues to gather pace and is a fundamental strand of economic activity throughout the Highlands and Islands. The Scottish Executive is firmly committed to the development of information and communications technology and the enterprise agencies have made it a key priority to direct efforts and resources towards upgrading communications infrastructure. I do not have to go outside my own constituency to give the example of Iomart, a dynamic company working on Lewis that shows what can be done in the Highlands and Islands. It is a young integrated telecommunications and internet services company. The group has a headquarters in Glasgow but Iomart's entire product range is supported from a purpose-built, dedicated support centre in Stornoway.
Wendy Alexander mentioned Jim Hunter who, as members know, chairs the board of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. When he presented Highlands and Islands Enterprise's most recent annual report, he was speaking as its chairman and as an historian. He said that it is several hundred years since the Highlands and Islands entered a new century in such good shape, relative to the rest of Britain, and with such exciting prospects. That is not to say that there is not still a big job to be done—there are plenty of places where the depopulation that started with the clearances still has to be reversed.
As an aside, Fergus Ewing's reference to Patrick Sellar during First Minister's question time today was loathsome and odious. Fergus Ewing has no sense of proportion or of history.
During the past 30 years, the population of Scotland as a whole—
Give way.
Order. The minister is winding up.
I suspect that Mr Ewing has just been wound up.
The population of the Highlands and Islands has grown by some 20 per cent over the past 30 years, but parts of that area have experienced much faster rates of increase. Take Skye for instance. Prior to the clearances, it had 24,000 people. By the 1960s, the population was down to 6,000, but today Skye has about 10,000 people. That increase was made possible by a greatly diversified economy.
"A Smart, Successful Scotland" indicates the priority that we give to social development, particularly, but not exclusively, in the Highlands and Islands. Highlands and Islands Enterprise is already strengthening communities by promoting investment in community assets, developing community strength and leadership and enhancing the value of culture and heritage. I am sure that there is broad agreement that the enterprise networks should continue to undertake those vital priorities.
I urge members to support the Executive's motion.