Regeneration
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2818, in the name of Colin Campbell, on regeneration. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I make it clear to Mr Campbell that I will certainly not go to the wire on the issue, but I understood that the members' business debate was on the Inverclyde economy. Has there been some confusion?
Perhaps Mr Campbell can help us with that when he speaks. I, too, queried the short title. I do not think that any member wants to go to the wire on the issue, but I will return to your query later, Miss Goldie.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises that a lack of appropriate jobs is a major problem in Scotland; notes that a main cause is the decline of heavy industry in the past three decades; considers that all local authorities, MSPs and key agencies should work together to implement a regeneration programme, and believes that the Scottish Executive should provide resources for its speedy completion.
Originally, I intended to address only the interests of Inverclyde, but an amendment to the motion was lodged and it did not seem that much agreement would be reached at the end of the day. Therefore, the SNP and I decided to change the motion and make it more general. The change will allow any member to speak about regeneration, which is of nationwide interest. I hope that members can live with that and I am sure that Annabel Goldie can adapt to the change.
Yes.
The debate is meant to be an opportunity for members to air good ideas. The motion refers to the "decline of heavy industry" as the main cause of joblessness. That decline has continued since 1919 and has been exacerbated by the problems that were created by the slow and painful decline of light engineering projects such as the Linwood car factory and the sometimes sudden demise of lighter, sunrise industries such as Motorola and NEC, which trained and employed large numbers of people, then disappeared, leaving an employment vacuum. The accession of low-wage European nations to the European Union may exacerbate the trend.
The motion also refers to "appropriate jobs". Changing demographics means a diminishing work force. Lack of jobs in some areas leads to the loss of young people and the lack of jobs that are appropriate to the qualifications and aspirations of other young people may oblige them to leave, too. A percentage will always emigrate to pursue careers so specialised that they cannot be pursued in every nation of the world—even in Scotland—or to gain experience that they will bring back. They may simply have a wanderlust. However, the need to provide greater diversity of jobs at all levels and to attract and encourage businesses that need such skills is great.
The motion calls for inter-agency co-operation—which is, of course, taking place—and calls on the Scottish Executive to provide resources. The Executive does that, and I am sure that it would provide more resources if the block grant were even bigger. I illustrate the enormity of the task by citing Inverclyde, although I know that the same situation exists throughout the country.
In 1987, when I was first a candidate for Renfrew West and Inverclyde, the future of the old Gourock pier head was an issue. It had to be tidied up and reinvigorated. That issue is still unresolved, after all these years, although the funding for shifting the railway station is now coming through and an end may be in sight. Similarly, the Cardwell bay development has been on the cards for years, but it is still an unresolved and contentious issue. Greenock's waterfront has been enhanced hugely by the James Watt campus, Custom House Quay and the neighbouring housing. The Gourock Ropeworks building in Port Glasgow remains a challenge to the imagination, and Port Glasgow looks forward to the east yard regeneration that will, when it is finished, provide many jobs.
It is a disillusioning experience for the electorate when grand plans are publicised but years elapse before anything happens. That affects community morale, causes cynicism and leaves unresolved the immediate problem of joblessness. Next Monday, Peter Peacock will launch the Clyde urban waterfront regeneration zone programme, under URBAN II, which was announced in the Parliament some weeks ago. I welcome that programme, which will have a limited time scale of four years until 2006. It should deliver the goods. The programme is funded by European money matched by UK money. I hope that the expectations there will be met.
Regeneration includes every aspect of community life—transport, education, health provision, recreational facilities and housing. Councils and organisations scratch around for funding from every source. Healthy living programmes have to pit their proposals against those of equally deserving communities on a win-or-lose basis; consultations take place on the possible loss of maternity provision in hospitals that are key to communities where there is a bad health record; and similar bodies compete for lottery funding. All interests are represented on all the bodies that are involved—such as health boards and social inclusion partnership boards—but I wonder whether they sometimes lose sight of the big picture as they attempt to solve the immediate problems in their area of responsibility.
The major resource that I call for from the Scottish Executive and its civil servants is help for citizens, councils and agencies in taking a more strategic view of the jigsaw of disparate—sometimes complementary, sometimes competing—efforts that are being made on regeneration throughout the nation. That help would bring more all-embracing solutions across departmental interests to communities that are in need of regeneration.
Where do we go to diminish the need for regeneration? In addition to the well-tried experience of attracting foreign investment, a potential solution would be to achieve a sustainable economy. Sustainable means investing in items that have a lifetime of more than 25 years. In that context, equipment, short-term job provision and even intellectual property could be defined as consumables. The definition of sustainable will encompass the future work force, which is being educated as we speak, infrastructure with a lifetime of more than 25 years and environmental resources with a similar or greater life span.
Whereas, in the past, we have seized on large and often transient incoming industries, the key is to build our own sustainable industrial infrastructure. The characteristics of those industries will be investment in research and development, the employment of existing trained employees in appropriate jobs and the training of future employees for developing the firms' future outputs. Investment in that form of sustainable industry will build up long-term businesses that, because they have strong ties to Scotland, will weather the storms of recession better and be here long after foreign branch factories have closed.
We should grasp new initiatives and areas of growth. I met representatives of the European Union's Commissioner for the Environment yesterday. It is clear that the potential for research and job opportunities in waste management and renewables is immense. There is a fridge mountain in the United Kingdom, on an airfield in Wales, which is waiting for someone to demolish it legitimately and in an environmentally sound way. Remploy, in Clydebank, is considering undertaking part of that work.
What research is being done into integrated product policy to produce low-energy-consuming products that will be recyclable at the end of their lives? What mechanisms exist to allow research outcomes to be translated into real jobs in Scotland, instead of research disappearing into an academic vacuum or being taken up by Scotland's competitors? Are the Scottish academics or civil servants examining likely areas of future regeneration need? Until now, regeneration has always followed on the footsteps of deterioration. Does the minister agree that sustainable indigenous industries will provide safeguards against the need for widespread regeneration in the future?
I will allow four minutes for the lead speaker from each party, after which members will have three minutes each.
I thank Colin Campbell for giving us the opportunity to discuss regeneration. As he said, it is an issue that concerns many communities throughout Scotland, in particular communities that were formerly dependent on heavy industries.
One such area is my constituency, Greenock and Inverclyde. That is hardly a surprise if we consider the speed of decline in shipbuilding there in the late 1970s and in the 1980s. James Lamont and Company of Port Glasgow closed in 1979; the Greenock Dockyard Company closed in 1980; George Brown and Company of Greenock closed in 1983; Scotts Shipbuilding and Engineering Company of Greenock closed in 1984; and Lithgow's of Port Glasgow closed in 1988—not to mention Kincaid's engine works. That industrial vandalism ripped the heart out of the community and left us with mass unemployment, widespread deprivation and precious few prospects.
If Shakespeare will forgive my murdering of his verse, "I come to praise Inverclyde, not to bury it." Despite the collapse of traditional industry, progress has been made. The local work force has retrained and reskilled. We have achieved the status of manufacturing export capital of Scotland, and we made the transition from building ships to making microchips. Unemployment is low, and the number of employed is very high. Our educational attainment levels are, according to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, among the best in the country. The number of my constituents who are in full-time higher education is now 2.4 per cent above the national average, and the number of people who are in further education is nearly 11 per cent above the national average.
There has been a dramatic redevelopment of our waterfront, as was witnessed by the 800,000 visitors to the area during the tall ships event. We have attracted such companies as One 2 One, as well as the Royal Bank of Scotland mortgage centre, to complement the more established major employers such as IBM and National Semiconductors. House prices in Gourock, for example, have risen by 69 per cent since 1991, and Wemyss Bay and Inverkip are growing so quickly that the local public services are having to work very hard to keep up.
Despite that progress, the perception of decline remains. That perception plays a big part in one of the key challenges that Inverclyde faces today: a decline in population. We are making progress, and are looking for light whenever it is there. The most recent population projections have been revised upwards, with the figures showing that the rate of decline is stabilising.
However, the challenges remain. The question now is how to reverse the trend. First, we must examine what pushes people away. There is no doubt that the jobs issue plays a part, but it is not simply a question of the number of jobs available, but of their quality. We cannot build and sustain communities on low-paid, low-skill temporary employment. We need to understand the needs of existing employers in electronics and in financial services, to convert some of our derelict land for inward investment and to realise the massive opportunities for tourism and leisure. Our successful James Watt College of Further and Higher Education will be a key player in that process.
The regeneration game must take the form of a package deal. To make Inverclyde a place of choice, we need to create a pleasant and safe place to live. We need to provide affordable, high-quality housing across all sectors, and in areas where people wish to live. Parents need to know that their children will be well educated in a warm, comfortable classroom that is fit for teaching in the 21st century. Our environment must be improved and our brownfield sites must be redeveloped.
Crime and the fear of crime can push people away from a community. For that reason, it is important that we crack down on crime and tackle anti-social behaviour. We in Inverclyde will do our very best to ensure that permanent and terminal decline is not our fate.
My speech will be fairly brief—not because it is unprepared because the motion is slightly different from the one that I had anticipated, but because I have a fairly severe head cold and my voice may give out.
Perhaps unusually, I find myself not entirely at one with Colin Campbell's motion, but my difference of opinion is fairly minimal. The motion states:
"That the Parliament … considers that all local authorities, MSPs and key agencies should work together to implement a regeneration programme".
I rather hoped that that was already happening in Scotland. Work is being done by the enterprise networks and by some very good local authorities. I say to Duncan McNeil that Inverclyde Council and Renfrewshire Council deserve their share of praise for responding to extremely challenging situations. Mr Macdonald will confirm that the enterprise networks and local authorities receive the biggest chunk of the Scottish Executive's budget. Local authorities receive about £6.2 billion. The Scottish Enterprise network, along with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, also receives a very considerable sum of money. If that is not working, what are the enterprise networks and local authorities being paid to do? To be honest, such a generalisation would be a little harsh on both the enterprise networks and local authorities.
I have not been diffident in being critical of the enterprise network. My principal concern is not that the enterprise companies do not have a job to do, but that I have not been able to perceive that they are doing that job to best effect. A valid question remains to be asked about that, given the resources that the enterprise network receives. Clearly, there are some areas of extremely good practice. I would like to think that that good practice would be replicated throughout Scotland. That would be the best way of contributing towards a regeneration programme.
Mr Campbell referred to the involvement of MSPs in regeneration. There are none so precious as those who belong to the same club, but if we were to ask the public what they think about the involvement of MSPs, the response might be problematic. MSPs have a role to play. Clearly we must be conduits of information, instruments for raising the profile of areas and authors of new ideas, suggestions and proposals. However, to be honest, the main hope for regeneration is to find sustainable enterprise, because that is the best way of bringing new life to areas. Both Colin Campbell and Duncan McNeil acknowledged that.
I was pleased to see—indeed, I lodged a motion referring to it—that last week business a.m. contained what can only be described as a glowing tribute to Renfrewshire Council and Inverclyde Council for their attempts to bring about regeneration in extremely challenging circumstances. Although we all applaud the concept of regeneration, I think that that is best achieved by solutions and proposals that are flexible. There was all-party agreement to a report by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on the impact at local level of business development services. That report stated that the best provisions are those that are locally tailored. That was the rationale for the suggestion that local fora be created.
Much is already happening. The one aspect of the motion that makes me slightly uneasy—Mr Macdonald will probably share my unease—is the statement that
"the Scottish Executive should provide resources".
I believe that the resources that are being provided are generous. I did not notice Mr McNeil calling on Mr Macdonald to increase those resources. The challenge is to ensure that the resources that are currently on offer are being used to best effect. While in no sense dismissing Mr Campbell's motion, I find myself unable to be entirely on all fours with the sentiments of part of it.
I congratulate Colin Campbell on lodging the motion that we are debating today. I am glad that it is drafted in broad terms, because it will come as no surprise to the member that I would like to bring a Highland perspective to the issue of regeneration.
I take members back a number of years, to when I was a wee boy. In my home town of Tain, a Glaswegian was a pretty unusual beast. We could name them on the fingers of one hand. However, another small number was the number of my old classmates who remained in the Highlands after their teens. We subsequently had a boom time in the 1970s.
Duncan McNeil talked about the decline of industries in his part of the country, but it is worth remembering that many folk from there, and from the central belt, went up to the Highlands to work in the rig-building industry in the 1970s and 1980s, when we enjoyed a boom.
One is apt to fall into the trap of thinking about regeneration only in the context of the central belt, but it is worth remembering that that issue also affects us in the Highlands, as I will describe.
The 1970s and 1980s were bonanza times for highlanders. The people who moved in were a welcome shot in the arm for Highland society and communities. They are still with us, having mixed. They have invigorated and strengthened Highland communities. Since that time, however, we have had an industrial decline in the Highlands. The kind of job that I had 20 years ago has largely disappeared.
I know that the minister, Lewis Macdonald, takes a close interest in oil and gas issues and that Scottish and UK ministers do their best to get contracts for the Highland yards. However, that is not easy to do. There was news this morning that the Barmac yard at Nigg, which is just a few miles from where I live, is the only yard in the Highlands that is still in the running for the big BP job. The situation is tough. To be honest, it is hard to see the slope going sharply up again.
We are left with Highland communities such as Alness, Invergordon and, to a lesser extent, Tain, where housing estates were put up at great speed in the 1970s. That means that many people who came to join us at that time are still with us. But times have changed. If you are a 55-year-old scaffolder, welder or shot-blaster, it is hard to train for work in the new industries, although they are doing their best. For example, I went round the call centre in Alness earlier this week and was amazed by how many former colleagues from the Nigg yard are working there. The general situation is difficult, but agencies such as the councils and the local enterprise network are doing their best to deal with it.
I plead with members to remember that regeneration applies not only to the central belt, but to the Highlands. The problems there are on a smaller scale, but are just as severe per capita as those faced in Inverclyde and the central belt. I ask members to remember that we are all in the same boat.
Speeches are now down to three minutes.
I congratulate Colin Campbell on having his motion accepted for debate. The motion is fortunately not entirely about Inverclyde, otherwise I would not feel qualified to contribute to the debate. I pass through Inverclyde, but I do not spend any time there, fine place as it is. My experiences are of further down the Clyde coast in North Ayrshire, particularly in the Irvine, Stevenston and Kilwinning areas.
I have two distinct points to make. First, I do not think that anyone can deny that historical imperatives have been a great source of problems for Scottish heavy industry and have caused the devastation of our traditional industrial communities. As Jamie Stone said, that situation applies not only to Inverclyde, but to the central belt, most of the south of Scotland and many other places in Scotland. That is a globalisation force that cannot be resisted.
However, more recent forces might have been resisted. The judgment on any Government or Executive is how it responds to such forces. In recent years, for example, in the closure of the Volvo plant in Irvine, the Executive's response has been woeful and inadequate. A challenge to the Executive and any Government, not just the Government to which Lewis Macdonald is an adornment, is to ensure that it can respond to pressures that come in from outside. It is also a challenge to have not only a short-term view but a long-term view of the potential of, and possibilities in, each of our communities.
The debate is about more than infrastructure. I was struck by some of Duncan McNeil's remarks. I thought that Annabel Goldie was coming on to the point when she tempted us by asking what the main hope of regeneration was, but I do not think that she adequately answered that point. The main hope of regeneration is people. The issue that Duncan McNeil raised was an issue of people. One can invest in almost anything in Scotland, but it will be hopeless without people.
If one looks at North Ayrshire, and Cunninghame South in particular, the difficulties that arise are not necessarily about infrastructure, although that is problematic. There are difficulties that concern education, social inclusion, giving young people purpose and hope in society, drugs and housing. Regeneration is about far more than things; it is about human beings.
One of the areas where this Parliament is least effective is in making the link between people, the landscape in which they live and the culture that surrounds them—everything that goes towards making up human beings in our society. That is the regeneration that we need in Scotland. That might sound unduly Messianic but it is not. It simply means that people matter more than anything else. A Government that is obsessed with ticking boxes and with targets and indicators forgets the importance of people. There will be no regeneration in Scotland until we remember that.
I thank Colin Campbell for securing the debate.
The motion says that
"local authorities, MSPs and key agencies should work together to implement a regeneration programme".
I want to focus on Port Glasgow, which is in Inverclyde and which I represent. Like Duncan McNeil, I work alongside local Labour councillors, officials, MPs and all the key agencies. As a result of that work, the area has received funding from the Scottish Executive of more than £900,000. That money will go towards improvements and extra facilities at the Greenock health centre—work which is well under way—and full funding for a clinic in the Boglestone area, which will provide a host of new initiatives. There will be close involvement with local people in the planning and proposed use of the clinic.
Plans have been accepted by the council to provide increased competitiveness, innovation and expansion of the indigenous businesses on the waterfront at Port Glasgow. Having mentioned the waterfront, I must mention Ferguson Shipbuilders shipyard, which is one of the few shipyards on the Clyde that is still building ships. I regret very much today's announcement to the effect that the shipyard was not successful in the latest Caledonian MacBrayne ferry bid. I shall continue to work with the company to secure orders for the yard.
The waterfront plan should increase the number of employment opportunities in the area. However, I advise the minister that, if the necessary traffic order to allow freight ferries to go from Port Glasgow to the north and south of Ireland has not been signed, as has been alleged, he should look into the matter immediately, as that appears to be holding matters up.
All those achievements have been the result of consultation, encouragement and the support of the council, MSPs, MPs, local businesses and the Clyde Port Authority.
With regard to Mike Russell's comments, I point out that the bid for European Union URBAN II funding, with matched funding from the Scottish Executive, which Colin Campbell mentioned, was designed to stop the movement of people away from Port Glasgow. The success of the bid was the result of the fact that all agencies, elected or otherwise, worked together to ensure that it succeeded.
How will we spend the money? We will develop health action plans, integrate care services, improve transport accessibility, have a positive approach to land use, foster a culture of lifelong learning, create a business base for women, young people, disabled people, the ethnic minorities and people on low incomes and provide employment and advice. We will also enhance the attractions of the town through the development of shopping, civic amenities and cultural leisure provision with the aim of encouraging people to come and live in Port Glasgow. Added to that, the thrust of the local government bill, which will be introduced later this year, will be community planning. That will assist the process.
Duncan McNeil and I do not stand on the sidelines shouting advice or criticism. We get tore in, as they say, and work with anyone who will contribute in any way to enhancing the lives of the people whom we represent.
I congratulate Mike Russell on giving a speech that I would have liked to have given if I had not already decided to speak on my usual subject of the contribution that green industrial development can make to the regeneration of Scotland. I could open and close my remarks simply by referring everyone to the speech that I made on 24 January, but instead I will expand on what I said then.
Many of the proposals on waste processing that are coming before the Executive are large scale and relate both to incineration and landfill. As I see it, that would preclude any of the developments from being situated in the areas that we would like to be regenerated—no one wants a landfill site and a new incinerator to be banged down in the middle of Clydeside, Dundee or Aberdeen. That situation has been created by the fact that the Executive's policy is not ambitious enough and does not include an aim to recycle all household waste.
To give an example, if a tonne of household waste is burned and the ash is landfilled, that will produce £26-worth of electricity. If that same waste is treated as a resource and all recycled, it can produce up to £700-worth of recycled goods. That is not £700 of profit—the profit on it will be relatively small—but the ambition in this case relates to what we can get from the waste. I recommend to the Executive that it implement policies of as close to zero waste and total recycling of household waste as possible so that recycling plants can be sited in those areas of Scotland that desperately need new industries and regeneration.
I will skip briefly over the other subjects that I would have liked to cover. Green transport—railway development in particular—organic farming, insulation and renewables all offer huge opportunities for Scotland in the sense that they are distributive. Policies to accentuate and develop those will produce jobs all over Scotland, not just in those areas that are looking desperately for jobs.
The subject of regeneration brought three words to my mind: people, communities and confidence. Other speakers have mentioned those.
I take issue with one or two points that have been raised. We must couple regeneration with wealth creation, because that provides us with the taxation that gives us health centres and social spending. As others have said, regeneration and wealth creation go hand in hand.
I believe in local initiatives. I hope that the economic forums that have been set up will produce the goods locally. We cannot go for a central plan. That was tried in Russia and did not work. Scots would not take kindly to it. We have different issues and opportunities in different areas of Scotland.
We should support sustainable business development, which will provide long-term jobs. Colin Campbell made a similar comment. The block grant does not exist to subsidise; it exists to help investment.
The Scottish Executive has a role in training, advising and creating a climate for investment. That will provide returns in the confidence that local people have that an employer might come along who will invest and give them jobs, self-reliance and quality of life.
The Executive has many tools. It has the business rate. It can influence fast-track planning. To redevelop a brownfield site can sometimes take an enormously long time because of the planning process. The minister could consider that, although he is not the minister responsible for planning.
The Executive also has a role in encouraging technology shift—the move towards new technologies. I will use the oil industry as an example. It is not a sunset industry—it has produced technology shifts, particularly in the north-east—but it will not exist for ever. There will have to be life after oil. Oil will not vanish from the scene overnight, but we must start planning to get the change in place. We must simplify business support and encourage research and development. We must also encourage the commercialisation of research. The Executive has a role to play in that.
Above all, we must have a positive attitude in communities. Agencies must work together and speak to each other. That must not take place in a political way and not with a sense of one scheme being set up in competition with another. People must look for ways in which to co-operate, but not silly ways that do not have long-term results. Whatever we do, we need sustainable redevelopment in our communities, new opportunities for those who train, and hope for the future for our young people.
I congratulate Colin Campbell on lodging a motion on regeneration. The subject sounds more like a Russian novel or a theological seminar than a debate in the Parliament, but it is a good issue to debate. I would like to accept his invitation to make a few constructive suggestions.
First, we should look critically at the new deal and try to target the money better. More money should go into the colleges and other efficient, reputable training organisations. Quite a number of the schemes are ineffectual and so should be discarded, as we could use that money better.
Secondly, as Colin Campbell mentioned, we need to support local small businesses to stay in business and to grow. If we could put half as much effort into sustaining our own industries as we have put into whoring about the world trying to attract people to invest in Scotland or Britain, we would do very well. If people want to come and invest, that is fine. However, far too much effort has gone into attracting them and not nearly enough effort has gone into supporting our small engineering and other industries.
In particular, we should try to promote more community industry, even if that is only somebody earning some money from cleaning other people's windows. We should advise the big banks, credit unions and other well-informed local organisations to target small sums of money to help a whole lot of people to get started in businesses. In that way, we could get businesses growing from the bottom up.
We need to consider developing sites such as Ravenscraig. I know that the prospect of developing Ravenscraig might produce conflict with other schemes to develop Motherwell town centre, but we need to work through the democratic system and get good developments on such sites.
Finally, I will make a plug for exploring the possibility of land value taxation, which is relevant to the debate. First, areas that have potential but whose potential is neglected should be taxed on their potential along with other commercial land. That would bring in money. Secondly, the efforts of the community to produce infrastructure such as new railway developments should increase the value of many such bits of land. People would then pay more tax, which would help to pay for the railway or whatever the development might be. We should positively explore the option of land value taxation.
I congratulate Colin Campbell on securing tonight's important debate. I welcome the fact that the debate is of a more general nature than was anticipated, as it allows me to make a few points about the economy of the north-east of Scotland.
The north-east has not suffered as much from losing heavy industries as other areas have, but we are in danger of losing some of our lighter industries. There is cross-party consensus on the view of the Scottish economy that, too often in the past, too many eggs were put in the one basket. The north-east's economy is largely dependent on the energy sector but, of the jobs that are in non-oil sectors, 20 per cent are in industries that are experiencing difficult trading conditions.
In the past few weeks, jobs have been lost in the paper industry and in the food processing industry. Our remaining textile industry is going through difficulties, while fishing and farming do not have their problems to seek. In the north-east, a major debate is taking place about diversification, because we cannot allow all our eggs to stay in the one basket.
It is unfortunate that the Government does not seem to realise that the key to regeneration is to try to avoid the need for regeneration in the first place. All the economic commentators in the north-east keep mentioning Ravenscraig to make the point that the Government should not wait for another Ravenscraig. The Government should do something now to protect the existing industries, especially those in the non-oil sector that I have mentioned.
Unfortunately, the Government does not seem to have any short-term solutions available to help out those industries that are going through difficulties. Because of apparent wealth, we do not qualify for things such as regional selective assistance. The local business community and the Government have few tools available to protect the existing industries.
Let me briefly mention the example of lottery funding, which is now increasingly used to regenerate local communities. Because the indicators fail to identify communities in the north-east that need regenerating, lottery funding is not making its way north of Dundee. I would like the minister to address that point.
Regeneration needs to happen in the context of bottom-up strategies. That is especially the case for rural communities, where community planning is so important. Rural communities that need regenerating do not just need infrastructure; they need flexibility in the funding that is available to them. Too much funding that comes to rural communities from the Government is overly prescribed. That means that communities cannot use it for their own ends to regenerate their communities locally.
My final message to the minister is that by all means let us pull out the stops to regenerate communities in Scotland that need to be regenerated. Let us also use all our powers to ensure that new candidates for regeneration are not created in future.
I call the minister, Lewis Macdonald, to reply on behalf of the Executive, after which I will return to the point of order that was raised at the start of proceedings by Annabel Goldie.
I thank Colin Campbell for securing the debate and for framing it in terms that allowed us to debate some of the important regeneration issues across the country.
As members have noted, the past 30 years have seen structural change in the Scottish economy including the dramatic decline of traditional heavy industries such as coalmining, steel-making and shipbuilding. Duncan McNeil mentioned that that had happened in his own locality. In the space of only three years between 1979 and 1981, Scottish manufacturing lost 11 per cent of its output and 20 per cent of its jobs. As a consequence of that, unemployment stood at over 10 per cent for most of the 1980s and much of the 1990s.
Those were the inescapable consequences of the economic policies of the Government of that time—policies that were politically motivated and ideologically driven. They carried a high human cost, which blighted a generation. They also did untold damage to business confidence in Scotland and to our image in the wider world. That legacy has taken time to repair.
We have a different economy from that of the 1960s. The service sector now accounts for some 60 per cent of Scottish output and 75 per cent of employment. Finance and business services now have almost the same weight in terms of gross domestic product as the whole of the manufacturing sector. In recent years, our high levels of skills and commitment have attracted new companies and new technologies to Scotland.
The Executive has sought to build on the strengths of the new economy as well as to reinforce our existing manufacturing strengths. Regeneration is not about seeking to restore the old order; it is about looking forward to identify how we can build a successful future for Scotland's economy, based on increasing employment, increasing economic growth and improving our competitiveness in a global economy.
Duncan McNeil spoke about how microchips have replaced ships as the chief product of his constituency. There are many new jobs across Scotland in many new industries—100,000 new employee jobs were created in Scotland between 1997 and 2001. We have the highest level of employment in Scotland and the lowest level of unemployment for a generation.
We recognise that there is a particular challenge in achieving the regeneration of those formerly heavy industrial areas, which lost out most in the course of the previous 20 years. We are achieving that through regeneration of the physical environment—Ravenscraig has been mentioned—and through regeneration of the economy by supporting the development of industries with growth potential. Above all, as a number of speakers have mentioned, we are doing that through regeneration of our human capital by providing the training to ensure that our work force has the skills to access the new jobs that are being created.
Trish Godman, Duncan McNeil and Colin Campbell have mentioned Inverclyde. It is one of those areas where real regeneration has been required. It is important to be clear that the future for that area is not bleak. Unemployment has fallen in Inverclyde faster than for Scotland as a whole. It has fallen to less than the Scottish average. The Scottish Executive has provided the area with regional selective assistance grants of over £10 million, with planned investment of nearly £100 million and the creation or safeguarding of some 2,000 jobs. Inverclyde has the highest manufacturing output in Scotland. As local members have described, the area is undergoing a renaissance. Annabel Goldie referred to an article in business a.m. that included a comment by the leader of Inverclyde Council about the success of his local area in making a significant contribution to the Scottish economy.
What is true in Inverclyde is also true in Easter Ross, the north-east and elsewhere in Scotland. The approach of partnership for regeneration is right for the whole country. Richard Lochhead spoke about the need for diversification, even in relatively successful economies such as that in the north-east. That diversification, like regeneration in our older industrial areas, requires us to look forward and to work in partnership to stimulate new economic growth and to seek to protect the older industries.
Many members have made the point that economic growth should, as much as possible, be driven by indigenous companies. What measures does the minister intend to introduce to ensure that that is the case?
Economic growth is our next challenge. The fundamental conditions for economic growth are good, but all members agree that there is a need to improve the rate of growth. To do that, we must consider the supply aspect of the economy.
I mentioned regional selective assistance in relation to Inverclyde. That is one example of us refocusing from a previous concentration on inward investment to seeking to expand the economy by stimulating indigenous companies.
As Duncan McNeil said, we cannot hope to achieve sustainable economic growth by relying on our ability to produce simple products more cheaply than other places. We must seek to add value to our produce and to achieve the economic growth that will come from that.
Members from all parties spoke about the importance of people. At the core of our economic strategy is the recognition that we must encourage and direct more investment toward science and skills. We are implementing Scotland's first ever science strategy. We are establishing an independent science committee and rebuilding public investment in that area. We plan to establish new specialist technology institutes to deepen our research and development capability, which we hope to translate into jobs in the energy, biotechnology and communication sectors. As Robin Harper said, some of the opportunities in the energy sector are in renewable energy.
Regeneration requires not only science, it requires skills. The heart of our skills strategy is to ensure that every Scot is ready for tomorrow's jobs. That does not mean only those who are at school or university, but those who are in the work force and who must update their skills to allow them to access the new economy as it develops.
At the heart of our regeneration strategy is a commitment to grow Scottish science and skills. Those priorities reflect our discussions with business, academics, trade unions, the enterprise networks, local authorities and all those with an interest in our economic future. To deliver the strategy, we must develop a national consensus in support of it. I welcome the positive aspects of the debate—there have been many—and the commitment that has been shown to achieving a consensus in support of economic regeneration for Scotland in the 21st century.
Before we finish, I return to the point of order that Annabel Goldie raised at the beginning of the debate. I found the debate to be such a catch-all that it was probably not in accordance with the guidelines that the Parliamentary Bureau laid down a year ago. My view is that members' business debates should be member specific, subject specific or location specific. The subject will be considered in the Presiding Officers' meetings.
Meeting closed at 17:58.