Scottish Executive's Programme
Resumed debate.
We now come to the resumed debate on the Scottish Executive's programme. I invite members who wish to speak in this part of the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. Nicol Stephen has eight minutes.
As I have only a short time in which to speak, I will highlight some of the key issues for the economy in Scotland and for the enterprise and lifelong learning portfolio, and I will start to give my perspective, as the new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, on those issues as I see them.
This is a very good week for business in Scotland. The announcement that was made yesterday about business rates was the most significant announcement for business since the previous Scottish Parliament elections, and it will give a major boost to many small and medium-sized businesses throughout Scotland. It is also a powerful symbol to business that we are listening to its interests and its lobbying organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce, the Scottish Council for Development in Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses, and that we are responding.
The announcement that I made today to offshore Europe delegates about renewables and the maritime sector in particular is also important.
Before the minister goes on to speak about what is a welcome announcement about wave and tidal power, will he give Parliament further details on the implementation of the commitment to reduce business rates? When will the reduction come into effect? Which companies will be affected? What will be the total bill paid by the Scottish Executive?
It will be a general reduction in business rates, as John Swinney well knows, which will bring rates into line with those in England. An estimate of the cost was given for 2005-06 and the assessment was that it would cost around £200 million. The commitment is to deliver that reduction in business rates within the period of the current spending review. More detail will be given about the announcement by Tom McCabe, the minister responsible for local government taxation and business rates, later this month. It is good to see John Swinney picking away at the detail because, after all, it was Nicola Sturgeon who said:
"he says in his manifesto that we need to cut business rates to boost economic growth. The question for him is whether, now that he is in charge of enterprise, he will deliver."—[Official Report, 29 June 2005; c 18457.]
It would have been kind of John Swinney if he had asked that question again today.
In relation to renewables, our announcement today was important because of the potential of renewables, and maritime renewables in particular, for Scotland. We have a great opportunity to generate a significant element of our energy needs from wave and tidal power and we also have a huge opportunity for Scotland to lead the world in that area.
I referred earlier this afternoon to the opportunity to become a nation like Denmark, which now dominates the market in wind power. I believe that, given the companies that we have in Scotland, we have the opportunity to do the same in relation to marine power. We have seen that potential in relation to the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and the help from there that allowed the Scottish Pelamis project to be exported to Portugal. However, we have to do more. That is why today's announcement on increasing the renewables obligation certificates that are available for wave and tidal power schemes is so important.
We have the capacity to deliver 10 per cent of Scotland's electricity needs from the maritime sector—from wave and tidal power. That represents more than a gigawatt of wave and tidal capacity; we need 13 gigawatts or so to cover all the electricity needs of our nation. Through such forms of power, we could create up to 7,000 jobs and could generate hundreds of millions of pounds of investment here in Scotland. However, we have an opportunity to go further. If we consider increasing oil prices and the demand for renewables, there are opportunities right across Europe, in China, in India and right around the globe. Scotland could be leading the drive in wave and tidal power. As Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, I am determined that we should do everything possible to ensure that we maintain our lead and secure the future of the industry here in Scotland.
The third area that I would like to touch on is that of capital investment. Put simply, Scotland needs more capital investment. Last week, the head of the Confederation of British Industry in the United Kingdom congratulated the Executive on our record levels of spending on transport. Our proposed transport and works bill is intended to speed up the pace of delivery. However, we also need companies themselves to invest more. I have heard from Fuji Electric (Scotland) Ltd in East Kilbride that it could source 60 to 70 per cent of its materials and supplies here in Scotland; currently 100 per cent of those materials come from Japan. The company recognises that one of the key reasons for the situation is not wage differentials but the willingness of Scottish companies to invest in research and development and in new machinery and new world-class equipment.
Does the minister recognise that part of the problem for young Scottish companies is the warranties that financial institutions require on track records? Will he discuss that issue with Scottish Enterprise to see what can be done to give the sector more confidence?
I would be happy to discuss that issue. We are happy to help businesses; we are not here to do the job of businesses but we can help with investment. For example, we have been helping textiles companies, Rolls Royce and British Aerospace with investment.
However, Scotland's track record remains poor. Last year, Scottish companies invested just £520 million in research. If they had matched even the UK average, they would have invested £1.2 billion. That is why the Scottish co-investment fund, the way in which we access venture capital markets and the need to encourage more of our companies to go for an initial public offer or public flotation are all areas that, over the coming weeks, I would like to investigate and set up initiatives on.
The minister identifies a problem in research and development. Does he have any answers to the question why that situation pertains here in Scotland?
Yes, I do. The issue is both historical and cultural. Many of our small and medium-sized businesses have not been making the investments that they should have been making. A senior executive at IBM told me of an example of a company that had bright, modern and efficient equipment on one side of its factory for its IBM contract, and old, run-down 1960s equipment on the other side of its factory. When he asked why the modern equipment could not be used in all of the factory, the answer was, "We could not afford to do that." My answer would be, "You can't afford not to. You can't afford to lag behind. You can't afford to get stuck in the 1970s."
We have to face the challenges of globalisation, we have to do what the best countries in the world are doing and we have to invest in people and their skills. To my mind, it is a great tragedy and a shame on the nation that in this day and age we have young people who are not in employment, education or training. We need an initiative to tackle that. I am very pleased that John McClelland has been made the chair of the new merged funding councils for lifelong learning and further and higher education. That gives out an important signal about the central role of the private sector in working with the further and higher education sectors. I would like there to be a major initiative in that area.
The fifth and final issue is that of cutting bureaucracy and red tape. As well as positively encouraging investment, we need to get out of business's way. Regulation must be balanced and fair and must avoid gold plating. I intend to be the champion of business in cutting red tape, bureaucracy and overregulation, not just within the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department but right across the Executive and also in the representations that I will make to the United Kingdom Government and the European Union.
Our economy underpins all that we do as a nation. If we are to thrive as a nation, we need the skilled, successful people who can create and develop successful enterprises. We have world-class life sciences, information technology, informatics and energy opportunities. Our research, our teaching and our ability to commercialise are improving all the time. If I can help to support that work in any way possible, I will do so. Our programmes have to do more. I am determined to deliver real action and real progress on these issues. As members have seen this week, the work has already begun.
I welcome the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to his new role and look forward to his personal and party views permeating the Executive's economic policy. I also look forward to a new era of more positive engagement.
The Scottish National Party's major disagreement with the Executive now relates to timing. We believe that Scotland's needs are urgent and that Scotland does not have nine lives. We also believe that collateral damage—at national, corporate and individual levels—will continue to accumulate from any further delay or procrastination in giving Scotland the powers that it needs.
Poll after poll tells us that the people know that that is the case and that they can see the link between the lack of powers and the lack of economic performance. The SNP will keep up the pressure on the need for more powers. We will also continue to take our message to the boardrooms and committee rooms of Scotland. In so doing, we will advocate that Scottish economic management should have worthy aims, such as raising living standards across the board; achieving genuine population growth; building a healthier demographic balance; and attaining convergence with the higher average life expectancy that is enjoyed in every other country in Europe.
We want Scotland to be free to perform in the way that Norway and Ireland can perform. Norway has more than doubled its population in 100 years and Ireland is on track to double its population in 50 years. Meanwhile, Scotland flatlines: the Government actuaries forecast that Scotland's population of 5 million, which has been the figure for all my lifetime, will drop to 3.6 million by 2073. Over the same timeframe, the figure of 3 million Scots of working age—who generate the country's economic growth—will drop to 2 million.
We want a Scotland that moves forward and confronts the numbers; a country that is not undermined by a lack of powers and targets or, indeed, by Westminster's delivery of policies that lead to the destructive and unchecked gravitational pull of wealth and talent to London and the south-east. Indeed, Westminster recently delivered a pensions policy that will allow people to put residential properties into their personal pensions. The policy will have perverse outcomes for Scotland; it could clear rural Scotland of young people and price other young people out of housing markets in all areas of Scotland.
We want a Scotland that faces reality, capitalises on all its advantages and is enabled to compete. We do not want a Scotland that is built on the First Minister's questionable assertions of yesterday, which included:
"Scotland's employment rate is now the best in the UK and among the highest in Europe".
That is simply not true. In making such utterances, the First Minister is being reckless with his reputation and damaging to Scotland. He is ignoring the 630,000 economically inactive people who represent 20.5 per cent of our potential workforce, 180,000 of whom would like to work. The First Minister created a false figure of labour participation and a false understatement of unemployment.
The First Minister also said that he wants Scotland's performance
"to be judged by indicators on a global scale."—Official Report, 6 September 2005, c 18780.]
That is fine provided that the data are not manipulated in the way that can be seen in the new tendency to understate low pay by ignoring the earnings of part-time and low-paid employees, or by crazily building and augmenting a false deficit into the process outlined in "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland". Under the GERS process, Scotland is ranked 55th out of 60 in terms of national viability at a time when we are trying to build a strong financial services sector.
It is in a sprit of generosity that I would like to help the member out. The Eurostat tables for August 2005, comparing the employment rates in the 25 countries of the European Union, make it clear that the United Kingdom is third out of 25—after Denmark and the Netherlands—and, indeed, Scotland is doing better than that. I hope that the member is not questioning the reliability of Eurostat in establishing comparable figures.
I am not; I am questioning the reliability of this Government when it comes to providing data to Eurostat. In a monetary and fiscal union, people migrate across borders to better jobs, and Scotland has 630,000 people of economically active age—one in five—who are not working. How is that for a badge of pride?
Global indicators matter to everyone in Scotland but the key global indicators are the ones that are left at the bottom of the crucible when all the dubious measures are evaporated away—for example what is happening to population and average life expectancy.
In relation to the programme for government, we welcome the belated move on business rates after six years of denial and the repeated rejection of logic, arithmetic and competitive need. Given the number of sheep dogs that have been after this sheep, we welcome the fact that the Executive has eventually gone through the gate. That is an important precedent and a signal that logic and persistence can force a volte-face on the part of Government. However, more logic and persistence will need to be applied because, although the step that has been taken is in the right direction, it does not, by any means, level the UK playing field. We are 35th out of 60 countries in terms of competitiveness while the UK is 22nd. How far does the proposal go towards closing a gap of about 16 per cent? Not a lot. It will not narrow the growth-rate gap, it will not allow us to converge, it will not solve our endemic social and economic problems and it will not do enough to create major Scottish-based companies. According to the Royal Bank of Scotland, with the exception of Cairn Energy, we have not created a major company in Scotland in 40 years apart from those that were created as a result of privatisation and deregulation.
Could Mr Mather clarify the SNP's policy on corporate takeovers? Earlier this afternoon, the SNP's deputy leader seemed to be suggesting that the SNP now supports some form of protectionism to defend Scottish Power when, of course, other successful companies, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, have built up their capital by taking over companies in other countries. Does he agree that there is a contradiction there?
The Royal Bank of Scotland has built its success on an element of protectionism that was delivered by the Conservative Government. Back in 1980, it was valued at £457 million. Would that be a thieves' bargain? We have five major sectors in our economy and will have only four if we lose Scottish Power. That is no basis for recovery. That is an abnormal situation that needs an abnormal solution. That solution will not inhibit our pro-enterprise credentials, our competitive agenda or our desire to see Scotland rampant on the world stage, growing and acquiring and taking over businesses. We welcome the investment in renewables and in transport and other infrastructure and are particularly keen to ensure that broadband coverage is universal and pervasive in rural Scotland. The people who I see in rural Scotland need that back-up. Great folk have always gone to good places, but sometimes, the good places are a bit less accessible than other places and we need to service them.
Fresh talent is fine, but talented people are mobile. What we have heard about research and development in our universities is fine, but intellectual property rights and fledgling companies are mobile. Sorry about this, Wendy, but the unmentioned smart, successful Scotland strategy has not been dipped into the rooting compound of fiscal freedom, which is a big issue.
Specifically, I want to examine the VisitScotland target, which is viewed with grave disappointment in the area that I represent. The target of a 50 per cent upgrade in revenue in a decade is meagre and shabby, given that we have a great international brand and we are in a new era in which Scotland's international profile has been raised. That Executive target could be achieved with 2 per cent inflation plus single-digit growth.
We want to see a better approach from the minister. We are encouraging him to be extremely brave. Three of the four former ministers with responsibility for enterprise now want more power for the Scottish Parliament. I know the minister's private view on that matter. In May, he said that we should have a more substantial tax-raising responsibility in Scotland. That was one of the flaws of the devolution settlement in 1999. It is time that we moved on and we are all waiting for the minister to do so.
I welcome Nicol Stephen to his first debate in the position of Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. I am sure that we all wish him well and look forward to him making good the various promises that he made during his election campaign.
This section of the debate is about growth and prosperity for all. I am sure that that is an aspiration with which we can all agree. We all want Scotland to be a prosperous and successful country, with a growing and vibrant economy. We want a Scotland in which our young people have great opportunities, to the extent that they do not need to leave the country and to seek to advance their careers elsewhere. We want a Scotland in which those who are currently disengaged from work find meaningful employment and can make a contribution to the economy. We want a Scotland that leads the United Kingdom in economic growth.
Sadly, as we know too well, that is not the position that we are in today, after six years of the Executive being in office. Our economic growth rates lag behind those of the rest of the United Kingdom, and there is no sign in recent data of that situation being reversed. We continue to suffer the loss of our bright young people as they go elsewhere to further their careers. Although employment rates are high, we face the problem of hidden unemployment, with people on disability benefit making up one in 10 of the workforce and others not appearing in official statistics.
We have a low level of entrepreneurial activity compared with the rest of the UK. We have a particular problem in manufacturing. In 1999, when the coalition came into office, there were 336,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland. Today there are 282,000. Sad to say, Scotland is not going forward under the Executive—it is going backwards.
We have the recurring problem of the size of the public sector, which is now estimated at between 52 and 54 per cent of gross domestic product. There is virtual unanimity among commentators that that level of public sector activity is crowding out the private sector and stifling economic growth. Despite words from the First Minister on that topic yesterday, there is little sign of the situation being reversed.
On numerous occasions in the chamber, I have set out what Conservative members believe needs to be done to reverse the situation. Scottish businesses are overregulated, with a large public sector contributing to the burden on their activity. For the past six years, Scottish businesses have paid higher business rates than businesses in the rest of the UK—a direct legacy of Jack McConnell's time as Minister for Finance. We still suffer from a poor transport infrastructure, which, given Scotland's geography, puts business at a particular disadvantage.
Given the record investment that is being made in public transport, IT and other infrastructure in Scotland, and the ability of the private sector to tender for and carry out that work, how is public sector investment crowding out some of the key sectors of the economy?
We could have a very interesting debate, which could go on all afternoon, about how the size of the public sector can crowd out private sector activity. There are a large number of well-paid, attractive jobs with good pensions in the public sector. The concern is that the size of the public sector can skew the decision making of young Scots who are seeking a career and looking to make decisions about how they lead their lives and whether to become entrepreneurs, to take risks and to set up businesses. That is a serious issue, and I am sorry that the member is trying to diminish it. However, he should listen to what I am about to say, because he may be encouraged.
I think that there is hope. We have a new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, which may mean a change of policy. On 29 May, Nicol Stephen told the Sunday Herald:
"My instincts are for lower taxation for business, less of a grants culture and more of an investment culture. Scotland's got to change dramatically if we're going to have the sort of economy that will allow us to compete internationally. We have to move away from the focus on the public sector and increase the number of well paid private sector jobs."
Hear, hear—that is exactly what Conservative members have been saying for the past six years. Does it mean that we now have a blue-tinted Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, who is preparing to pursue a Conservative agenda?
The initial signs have been encouraging. The Executive has indicated that it is prepared to reverse its existing policy on business rates, which is extremely welcome and long overdue. We have been calling for a change in that policy for the past six years. For six years, the Deputy First Minister and his predecessors as Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—including Mr Wallace, who, sadly, is not with us this afternoon—told us how wrong we were and that there was no competitive disadvantage for Scotland, as we had claimed for so long. In the biggest U-turn since the Liberal Democrats decided that local income tax might not be such a good idea after all, there is now to be a reduction in rates to the English level. The reduction may even go further in certain cases. It gladdened my heart to hear Executive members on the benches behind the ministers queueing up to praise this wonderful new policy that they had so recently denounced.
I thank Murdo Fraser for his kind and positive words. He spoke about the long-term growth rate of the Scottish economy and focused on the year 1999, but perhaps he should reflect on the fact that a Conservative Government was in charge of the United Kingdom and Scotland from 1979. One of the problems that we face in Scotland is our long-term growth rate, which has been exceedingly poor; it was certainly poor for the 18 years during which the Conservatives were in office. I invite him to reflect on the fact that, in seven out of the past eight years, that long-term growth rate has been better than it was during the Conservative years. He mentioned how many manufacturing jobs there were in Scotland in 1999, but can he tell us what the figure was when the Conservatives came to power in 1979?
As I am not a walking encyclopaedia, I do not have the exact figure at my fingertips. However, I have something to tell the minister, which I am sure that he will already know, because he is a clever man who will have done his research.
In the early 1990s, there were three years in which Scottish growth outstripped growth in the UK as a whole. That situation was virtually unique in the past 50 years. The growth in those three years was achieved under a Conservative Government because—if members can believe it—that Government took decisions about encouraging manufacturing in Scotland, to the extent that Scottish manufacturing exports in the early 1990s were at record levels. At that time, manufacturing was a key driver of the economy and, as members know, that was largely the result of the programme of inward investment that the Conservative Government pursued. We need no lessons from the Executive on how the economic record of the Conservatives in Government compares with the Executive's record over the past six years.
I will be brief. Mr Fraser is a clever man, just like Mr Stephen, but has he not worked out that if the Conservatives delivered growth in Scotland that was higher than growth in the UK as a whole for three out of 18 years, for the remaining 15 of those 18 years they delivered the same atrocious performance as the Executive has done? Surely that goes to prove that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberals are all useless and that we should have the normal powers of a normal Scottish Parliament.
We may live to see the day when we have a Scottish nationalist Administration—although I doubt that even I will live to see that day—and then we will find out how well it does.
Rather than a change of passport, which the nationalists advocate, we need a change of policy to create an environment that is more pro-competitive business. That is how to improve economic underperformance. The Conservative Government of the 1990s proved that that could be done in three years, in spite of all the inherited problems of the Scottish economy at that time. The same can be done again with the right policies, not by pursuing the fantasy land of independence.
The new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has a clear choice. He can carry on with the policies of his predecessor and maintain the coalition with his Labour colleagues that has led to high spending and centralising policies that have failed to improve public services, regenerate our communities or strengthen our economy, or he can turn his campaign pledges into action right now.
There is no mystery about what is required to make a successful economy—the evidence exists all around the world. Less Government interference, lower taxes and a solid infrastructure are what private companies need to allow them to compete. Those measures will deliver the economic growth that we all want to see. I believe that the minister knows what needs to be done; now it is time for him to deliver.
I start by reminding members of my registered interests as a board member of Community Enterprise in Strathclyde, which is an organisation that supports social businesses and gives grants and loans, and as a member of the Financial Services Skills Council's Scottish employers steering group.
I welcome the package of measures that the First Minister announced yesterday and I support him in seeking to find Scottish success through Scottish ambition. For too long, our search for the solutions to problems has led to the sort of negative comments that we have heard sometimes from our members, but more often from Opposition members. Law and order, improved health, safer communities, efficient transport, good education and real and meaningful training opportunities are as important to our economy and to the debate as are measures that might be considered to be more directly relevant to the business agenda.
The Bank of Scotland's latest employment survey, which was published last weekend, shows that the Scottish rate of employment is moving steadily upwards, with 257,000 more people employed now than were employed 20 years ago. That is an increase of 13 per cent; that is higher than the percentage increase for London, which is to be welcomed. I remind members, including Mr Fraser, that most of the increase has come about as a result of the successful economic policies that Labour has adopted since 1997 and, here in Scotland, since 1999.
Does the member accept that, in those 20 years, there has been a demographic change in the workforce? There has been a change in the number of women in the workplace and we have lost a lot of high-paid jobs and now have a lot of low-paid jobs in retail, wholesale, call centres and hospitality.
I am grateful to Jim Mather for pointing out the blindingly obvious about women in the workforce. I do not accept his contention about low-paid jobs, because I know from experience that many jobs in financial services and the business support sector are well-paid jobs that are done by highly skilled people. I accept that a large number of low-paid jobs still exist and that we need to improve that situation, but I do not accept that jobs are low paid across the board just because they are in business support or call centre industries.
The minimum wage has dealt with the lowest-paid jobs. In spite of the scepticism of the Opposition, the policy has been a resounding success and has led to business growth and job creation rather than to job losses. The financial services sector now has 9.3 per cent of Scottish jobs—108,000 are directly in the sector and 90,000 are in related industries. The sector has grown by 36.5 per cent in the past five years and accounts for almost 6 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product. That shows that the Labour policy of targeting specific areas of the economy for help is working.
In considering how Labour and the Scottish coalition Government have targeted specific issues, I would like to consider taxation levels, especially corporation tax, which is a favourite shibboleth of the Opposition, particularly the SNP. Leaving aside Ireland for the moment—I will come back to it—let us look at corporation tax rates in some of the Opposition's favourite countries to cite. Finland's rate is 26 per cent, Austria's is 25 per cent, Norway's is 28 per cent, Belgium's is 34 per cent and Germany's is 38 per cent. Compare those figures to our rate of 30 per cent: our rate is high, but we can hold our own against any of those countries. Ireland's rate is low, but for a good reason. I recall the economic circumstances when I was growing up there, which meant that Ireland's economy needed to move from being agriculture based to being manufacturing and service based. The low rate was a deliberate policy; it worked, but the aim was to address levels of poverty that members have never encountered. I congratulate Ireland on achieving that.
As Professor Arthur Midwinter has pointed out to the Finance Committee, corporation tax is worth £700 million a year to the Scottish economy. However, I have not heard any suggestion as to how, if the tax were to be cut to the Irish rate, the difference would be taken account of.
I thank Christine May for generously taking a second intervention. I suggest that she reads our paper "Let Scotland Flourish: A Growth Strategy for Scotland", which talks about the virtuous circle that would come if we actually grew the cake, created a competitive Scotland, broke out of 30 years of bumping along the bottom at 1.6 per cent growth rate and set a target rate of around 4 per cent—the average for small countries in western Europe.
I took that paper to bed with me, but I am sorry to say that I fell asleep.
Harmonisation of the business rate poundage is extremely welcome. It is especially good for manufacturing industry throughout Scotland. I cite the example of the paper-making industry in my constituency, for which business rates are a big element of costs because of the size of plant involved. The reduction in business rates will be very good news for those who seek to attract high-tech development into areas such as the energy park in Methil and other industrial areas in my colleagues' constituencies.
The proposal to give additional help to research and development intensive companies will also be welcomed by our universities and technology industries. I hold up as an example the collaboration that has taken place between the University of St Andrews and business and technology companies throughout Scotland, which has led to significant work being done on fuel cell technology.
Finally, I welcome the announcement that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning made this morning on renewable marine energy, which will have implications for yards on the east coast. However, I remind the minister of the potential that exists for greening and cleaning up emissions from conventional power stations. I also urge him not to forget renewable sources such as biomass. I ask that he have urgent discussions with his colleagues in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department on harmonising grant levels for growing energy crops, given that £1,000 per hectare is available in England whereas the equivalent figure in Scotland is still only £600 per hectare.
I conclude on that note, and I welcome the statement that the First Minister made yesterday.
I apologise in advance to members because I will need to leave before the end of the debate to attend to constituency business.
I, too, welcome Nicol Stephen to his new role, although I will miss the friendly exchanges that we had during his tenure of the transport portfolio. However, I am pleased to hear that he is now the self-proclaimed champion of tackling red tape and bureaucracy. I had not previously noticed the minister taking the courageous step of making such grand claims. Indeed, I had rather admired his former guile and caution. This seems to be a new bold Nicol—Nicol max, not Nicol lite—but we welcome him.
On a serious note, however, will the minister follow up his claim by producing specific proposals on which pieces of red tape he will consign to the new Nicol dustbin? For example, will he consign to the dustbin regulations that might have an impact on many small businesses in his patch and in mine? The regulations to which I refer will force people who have private water supplies to pay several hundred pounds more—perhaps even more than £1,000 more—for monitoring of that supply. Such supplies provide Scotland's water pure and sweet to many customers, none of whom seems to have died as a consequence of visiting bed and breakfasts that have such supplies throughout the land. Alternatively, will that red tape come into being like every other piece of red tape? Will we see Nicol Stephen as Rocky, or will we see business remain on the ropes?
Let me turn to fuel, which no one has mentioned so far. As Jamie Stone will know, the pump price reached £1.06 in Caithness this week. For people in many parts of Scotland—and for Sloane rangers in Chelsea, where people have more money than sense—£1 a litre has become the norm and is likely to remain so for several years to come. What will the Executive do about that? As Nicol Stephen knows and appreciates, people in industries such as farming—the National Farmers Union Scotland released a statement on the subject today—fishing, timber and, in particular, haulage are suffering severely because of those high prices.
At the start of the summer recess, I visited a haulier in the north-east who explained to me that the impact of fuel costs and the working time directive may force his company—as it has forced many other companies—out of business. Every week, haulage companies are forced into liquidation. They do not court publicity or headlines, but many are getting out before their overdraft gets too high. Who can blame them? Some companies, including one major company in the north of Scotland, are thinking of relocating to England because of the high transport costs. If they do so, that will be utterly tragic. We have already seen the closure of Norfrost Ltd. Sadly, Arjo Wiggins Ltd has decided that it will cease its operations in Fort William; it cited transport costs as a significant factor—I do not say that it is the main or only factor—in its decision.
I wait to hear what the minister will do about the situation. It is clear, in any case, that something needs to be done. I hope that the minister will support the Road Haulage Association's call for a thoroughgoing inquiry into the freight industry. Some of the things that are being done are good, for example the training and recruitment of drivers, although more needs to be done in that respect, and I hope that Parliament will take that on board.
I am gravely concerned that Scotland, Europe's major producer of oil over the past three decades, also has the unfortunate distinction of paying the highest fuel tax in Europe. That seems to me to be nothing less than fiscal sadism.
Moving swiftly on to the topic of business rates, I enjoyed Murdo Fraser's version of the Tory Government's record in that regard. Before he administers too many more lectures to members of other parties, he should reflect on the fact that between 1979 and 1995—15 years out of 17 years of Tory Government—business rates in Scotland were higher than they were in England. Ian Lang stepped in to take measures to fix a national higher rate, taking power away from councils, but he did not do so until 1990. It was Craig Campbell of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry who calculated that the amount of overtaxation from 1990 to 1995 alone was £1.2 billion.
You have one minute left.
Certainly.
He is in his last minute
It seems that I am not allowed to intervene at this point.
I tried. When Mr Fraser gives lectures about Jack McConnell overtaxing business by £800 million, he should reflect on the fact that his party was perhaps even worse. It is only in the past two years that we have had a so-called level playing field.
It was the current First Minister, Jack McConnell, who introduced the higher poundage. When he did so in 1999, I remember calling it "Jack's tax", after its author. It was Jack who brought the tax to life: it lived for six years, then he killed it. That is the first case that I can recall of fiscal infanticide.
I will finish by quoting Oscar Wilde. He said:
"Yet each man kills the thing he loves …
The brave man with a sword …
Some do it with a bitter look".
What are you on?
I will sit down on that point.
"Follow that," as one of my colleagues has just said. I will follow the trend and begin by adding my welcome for Nicol Stephen to his new post. I am rather glad to be here myself. Someone in the whip's office rather mischievously asked me whether I should not now be featuring in our debates on strong and healthy families, to which my response was, "Not yet."
Tempting as it is to counter some of the pessimism from the Jeremiahs on the Opposition benches, I will restrict myself to just the briefest of ripostes. We have more Scots in work today than in 23 of the other 25 nations in the European Union. Today, Scottish unemployment is below that of London, which was a pipe dream for so many years. This year, growth in Scotland is predicted to be higher than that of our major trading partners, France, Germany and the euro zone as a whole.
I will not fall into the trap of simply trading statistics. This debate is on a programme for government; it is about our response as politicians. Yesterday, the proper clarion call from the SNP's deputy leader was for a coherent programme. Who could disagree with that? Many of us on the Labour benches believe that that is just what we got, with a landmark decision on business rates, further modernisation of the justice system, reform of school meals and so on.
In the eyes of Her Majesty's principal Opposition, however, the search for a coherent programme apparently still goes on. I decided to take a look at the policy proposals—the foundations of any coherent programme—to have emerged over the last 70 days of recess from the SNP's 19 front-bench spokespeople. Here I personally exempt front-bench new boy John Swinney, who, I am delighted to see, has returned to grace the Opposition's front bench, albeit only two days ago. For the other 18, consider this: over the whole recess they managed less than one release each. Members should not fear, however: there was a handful of issues that were so pressing for Scotland—
The member must be joking; I make six releases a week.
If we count the releases on the SNP website, 17 issues were thought to be worthy of comment. We should listen up for that coherent programme.
I would be delighted.
Mr Arbuckle, please speak into your microphone. No one can hear you if you turn your back to the microphone.
I was just wondering whether Ms Alexander was complaining about the lack of SNP releases or congratulating us on escaping from them.
The member should bear with me; I am simply inviting the chamber to reflect on whether the SNP has given us a coherent programme. There was the small matter of William Wallace; there was the constitutional status of the Faroe Islands; there was the size of the SNP's debt; there was which demonstration they were attending and there was condemnation of Scotland's profit-hungry power companies. That was from an allegedly pro-enterprise party, according to today's First Minister's question time. When the largest power company in Scotland is fighting for its future, it is being condemned as a profit-hungry power company.
Of course, it is easier to go back to the old ideas because they are always the best, so whenever there is a global crisis such as this summer's continuing conflict in the middle east or catastrophe in the southern United States, and whatever the immiseration that has been visited on the world's benighted people, when it leads to a spike in commodity prices, the SNP calls for the spoils, and suddenly it is "Scotland's oil" again.
The various bandwagons went like the summer sun, but a coherent programme was as elusive as the SNP's leader. Indeed—with the sole and honourable exception of education—having searched all 7,000 of the words of wisdom that came from the SNP's summer sun, it was hard to find a new idea.
I turn to Her Majesty's other loyal Opposition. It might be smaller than the SNP, but the Scottish Tory party has almost as many spokespeople as does the SNP. So what was its coherent programme this summer? What were the burning issues and priorities for Scotland for what we are assured is a resurgent Tory party? We discovered that they are still anti-Europe, anti-trade union, and against relocation of jobs. They are now even against Brazilian cows. Beside those really big issues, we have to wonder why, for nine long weeks, the fearless Tories had not a word to say on the economy or the health service and not even a squeak on education when the schools went back. To be fair, the Tories did stick up for one cause this summer; Scotland's dairy cows. Perhaps they reckon that if the people of Scotland will not vote for them, the cows might.
In conclusion and in a spirit of genuine cross-party interests, I invite the Opposition parties, which are searching for that holy grail of a coherent programme, to follow where the Executive has led. As we on these benches have learned, and perhaps others have yet to discover, coherent programmes can come only from moving beyond the old slogans and beyond being agin everything and for nothing, to embracing the future with confidence and clarity. With that, I commend to Parliament the only coherent programme that is on offer, which comes from the Executive.
After that great comic turn, we should return to the debate, which I understand was supposed to be about prosperity for all, and who could disagree with that? I want to consider more closely what we mean by prosperity. Do we mean having more money in the bank or do we mean something a little bit deeper than that? Why do people want to become prosperous? Is it because they want more stuff, bigger houses or faster cars? Do they think that it will make them happier in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Over the past 30 years, the economy has doubled in size, but as the graph of GDP climbs up and up, the graph of life satisfaction stubbornly refuses to move from the horizontal, yet the Government and the Executive maintain the illusion that people can spend their way to happiness, and the Opposition fails to challenge that orthodoxy and seeks to perpetuate that myth. It is becoming ever clearer that economic policies that are designed to boost our GDP are having the effect of eroding social and community programmes that enrich our lives. As we privatise services that were previously performed by families and communities, the fabric of our society becomes ever more threadbare, but GDP goes up and the Executive rejoices, and nobody bats an eyelid.
Successive Governments appear to be more beholden to the business community than to the people who elect them. People are so trapped in neo-liberal orthodoxy that they dare not speak out for fear of being labelled as extremists. Those are the depths to which our economic debate has sunk. The Green party is not against business. What we are opposed to, and what we will remain opposed to, is businesses that undermine social justice, environmental justice and trade justice. There is no place for business practices such as that in a smart, successful and sustainable Scotland, and the sooner the Executive realises that, the better.
What is our vision for a prosperous Scotland? We seek a Scotland that generates and uses energy efficiently, that uses resources wisely and which does not have a throwaway mentality. A Scotland that saved energy and resources would also save money. We need to build a Scotland that lives within its means, that uses its vast array of natural resources and which provides opportunities for all our young people. We need to build a Scotland where every home is cheap and easy to heat, and where every home can contribute to our sustainability by generating at least part of its own power. If we take climate change seriously, we could scarcely do otherwise, and our reward will be job creation on a scale that has not been seen for many a long year.
We want a Scotland that does not expect its manufacturing industry to compete with businesses in the developing world that have pitiful social and environmental standards. We need to encourage business to grasp fully the massive opportunities that our new energy future offers them. If we have the vision, Scotland's businesses can become world leaders, but if that vision is lacking, our businesses will fall by the wayside. We welcome this morning's announcement about the marine renewables industry and we hope that the words are followed closely by action. I was really encouraged by the minister's words when he spoke of his commitment to marine renewables this afternoon.
There is no conflict between a healthy environment and a healthy economy, in spite of the nonsense that is spouted by some of the more ill-informed members of Parliament. We will never achieve a truly sustainable economy unless we take the environment seriously. Failure to address our addiction to the dwindling oil supply risks not only environmental, but economic devastation.
We need to build a Scotland that genuinely promotes sustainable development as a core philosophy, not as a bit of green thread or as an optional extra. Sadly, there are ministers in today's Executive who seem to think that sustainability and environmental protection are nothing to do with them. It is disappointing that the First Minister's statement yesterday made scarcely any mention of sustainable development. Every policy must be reassessed in the context of true sustainability. It need not be difficult or expensive to lead a sustainable lifestyle, but the ridiculous economics of modern life mean that it can often appear to be easier and cheaper for businesses and individuals to live and operate unsustainably. Until the Executive acts to reverse that ludicrous equation, we will never achieve genuine prosperity for all.
I will give a little plaudit to Nicol Stephen and congratulate him on his election as leader of his party despite the fact that I declared in favour of him at a members' business debate. He got over that hurdle quite well.
Yesterday, the First Minister stated that his programme was one
"for growing economic prosperity for all Scotland to share".—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18773.]
However, in the 24 pages of his statement, he mentioned transport only twice. First, he claimed:
"We are providing more new roads, more trains, and more new stations, resulting in more bus and rail journeys being made. New … air routes to and from Scotland are making Scotland the first UK destination of choice"—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18780.]
I am staggered by his attempt to take the credit for all that on his own shoulders when none of it would have happened without the private sector's participation and partnership.
The First Minister then admitted:
"Too many critical transport projects … planned are taking too long to implement"—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18782.]
but decided that introducing even more legislation would be the solution. I put it to him—and to Wendy Alexander—that if he is serious about wealth creation, he should address the issue of getting goods to market, which is a major concern of people who run businesses. Not once did he mention freight; however, he claimed that business success will take Scotland forward.
It would be very easy and cheap to list all the pinch points on the rail network that slow down more than passenger rail journeys. When it comes to timetabling, rail freight is the poor relation. Rail connections to our ports and harbours are poor and road access to industrial and commercial estates and harbours is not much better.
Last week, I had the honour of speaking at the northern maritime corridor international conference in Bodø in northern Norway. The nations that were present included the low countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Faroes and Iceland. The Orkney Islands Council, Highland Council, Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council also attended. The next stage of that project, which has been running for three years, is a proposal for a motorway of the northern seas that will connect Scotland with its traditional northern trading partners.
At the conference, I stated that development was being held back by the road and rail infrastructure and connections to our north-east ports. The trans-European highway grinds to a halt at the Bridge of Dee—at least until 2010, when the Aberdeen western peripheral route is scheduled to open.
On that point, I say to the minister that we on the Conservative benches very much support that western peripheral route and believe that it is vital to the whole north-east of Scotland. However, today we received a delegation from the Camphill Village Trust. The First Minister commented yesterday that the programme is "for justice and respect" to
"ensure that no child is left behind or held back"—[Official Report, 6 September; c 18773.],
and that it is also "for health improvement". We urgently need a solution that not only gives the north-east the western peripheral route, but which mitigates the problems that face the Camphill and Myrtle site. That community must be able to continue to deliver its excellent system of support to people who are affected by autistic spectrum disorder.
When Nicol Stephen was the Minister for Transport, he said that he would partially improve the A90 to Aberdeen. Why does he not do so? When the Conservatives promised to deliver an A90 that would run all the way from the Forth bridge to Aberdeen, they did that on time and within cost. However, the A90 in the north-east needs to be dualled and the A96's links with the Inverness area must be improved.
The state of the transport infrastructure in the north-east, Gordon Brown's crippling fuel taxes—I remind Fergus Ewing that councils levied those high taxes in the past—and the intrusive effects of the European Union working time directive pose great risks to all. Despite the National Farmers Union of Scotland's claim today, all businesses in the north and north-east of Scotland are complaining about the costs of survival. Small freight companies are not going to survive and the larger ones are looking for alternatives.
I suggest that there is an alternative for the businesses that tell me that they must relocate their manufacturing capacity closer to their markets: we must look to the sea. We must improve our sea transport infrastructure and that opportunity for Scotland is there for the taking. However, we need an international container facility that is regularly fed by coastal routes and which is linked to all our major ports. If we rely totally on Rosyth, we will leave out the north-east and thereby damage a vibrant economy. Using the sea will also save the environment because it will reduce the amount of traffic on our roads and the congestion on our rail routes.
I am convinced that there is a way forward for the northern maritime corridor project that has been talked about, but not if it is left only in the hands of regional authorities on the continent and here. It is time that senior politicians got involved in the project to decide what can be delivered, at what cost and to what benefit. The benefits for freight transport can be enormous. Frankly, it is something that cannot be ducked any longer.
Next week we have a debate on Caledonian MacBrayne, but I ask the minister in winding up to assure us that all companies that are bidding for the Northlink Orkney and Shetland ferries tender will have equal access to the information that is required for formulating a bid.
To me, a co-ordinated plan for the economy must be vertically integrated and in must include freight transport.
I will depart from my script by referring to Fergus Ewing's earlier comments on the price of fuel in my constituency and other parts of the Highlands. We must remember at all times that taxation and VAT on fuel is reserved to Westminster. However, my colleague in Westminster, John Thurso, is of the opinion that a derogation of VAT is the best way to tackle fuel prices. He is taking that forward and discussing it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a practical move and it would be helpful if some of Mr Ewing's colleagues in Westminster were to support it and shift themselves on the issue. They have not done an awful lot to help.
In fairness to the Executive, when there was an inquiry by the then Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee into the price of fuel in 2001, the Executive said in its response that it would continue to work with the Scotland Office on the issue. I have no reason to doubt the truth of that. In welcoming the minister to his new job, I am sure that he will keep his eye on that in the future. The price of fuel is an issue in the Highlands and Fergus Ewing was right to refer to it.
I would like to turn to an issue that Wendy Alexander was perhaps hinting at when she referred to Brazilian cows, but I would like to talk about cattle in the Highlands. We have a problem that is relevant to this debate on growth and prosperity for all. I will read from a letter that I received several days ago from the Scottish Crofting Foundation:
"The flooding of the market with this cheap beef"—
that is a reference principally to South American beef—
"is having a very detrimental effect on the supply chain throughout Scotland, but will have particularly serious economic impacts in fragile rural areas."
The letter continues:
"Crofting cattle are the first link in the chain, with the majority of animals sold from crofting areas going as stores, to be finished elsewhere. The concern of course is that where finishers are making losses as a result of being undercut by imported beef, they can afford to pay less for store cattle or will not buy at all and hence the bottom falls out of the store trade."
Again, in fairness to the Executive, it is doing what it can to help and encourage beef producers. For example, there is the beef national envelope and good agri-environmental incentives.
I am sure that my Green friends would say that cattle are good for the countryside and I would echo that view. Jenifer Cameron of the North West Cattle Producers Association has kindly furnished me with facts that members may not know. The historic decline in cattle numbers has had serious environmental impacts. Without cattle, the fertility of croft and farm land can deteriorate. Fewer trace elements are available and the variety of flowers, herbs, grasses, birds and other wildlife declines. Cattle graze differently from sheep and deer. The way they graze and trample—and their dung—can have a positive impact on the land.
There is clear evidence in the Highlands and many other parts of Scotland—and, indeed, in Ireland—that the spread of bracken is linked closely to the fact that sheep are replacing cattle on the ground. I draw members' attention to Sir John Lister-Kaye's publication of some years ago, "Ill Fares the Land", in which he argued cogently for increasing cattle numbers. I believe that the Executive is in full agreement with that view.
Another relevant factor is the production of winter feed such as hay and oats, which provide food and shelter for birds and other wildlife. Believe it or not, one cow produces an average of 4 tonnes of dung a year. That dung produces an insect population that is equivalent to a quarter of the cow's own body weight and which, of course, feeds birds and all sorts of other beasties.
I am sorry if I sound a bit like Stewart Stevenson on this—without in any way denigrating him. The point is that we have a problem here that could undermine a way of life that the Executive is deeply committed to backing up: crofting in the Highlands. We could lose those people who produce the wee beasts in the most fragile areas.
What can we do about it? The Executive cannot wave a magic wand and say, "Thou shalt buy Scottish beef." The North West Cattle Producers Association and the Scottish Crofting Foundation have written to the supermarkets in the past few days, asking them to look again and using persuasive arguments. The answer, perhaps, is partly a notion that has come to me from the Rev Richard Frazer, the minister at Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh. We should appeal to people's higher judgment when they go shopping and point out—as the Greens have rightly done—that whole chunks of rainforest are being taken out to get a quick cash kill on cattle. We should point out that, in Brazil, they do not mind about foot-and-mouth disease, but just get on with it, and that, in traceability and the way in which livestock is looked after, we in this country are miles ahead in every single way. If, as well as appealing to the supermarkets to stock Scottish beef, we appeal to that instinct in the shopper, we might be able to do something.
It is about educating the consumer, which is why it is relevant to the minister's portfolio. Ultimately, as well as being about rural affairs and agriculture, this is about enterprise. It is something that we must continue to keep an eye on in the future. Some great things are being done, such as putting fresh fruit and vegetables into schools, and I believe that more work can be done.
I support the Executive's programme absolutely. The announcement on rates has caught the Opposition parties completely and utterly on the hop. Wendy Alexander wondered aloud what would be the holy grail for the Opposition parties. I would have thought that the answer would be half decent leadership.
I share a number of Jamie Stone's concerns about Scottish agriculture. Farmers in Scotland are looking to the Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development to do something about those problems.
The First Minister has set the right agenda for growth and prosperity. I especially like his commitment to move on from Scottish solutions to Scottish problems to Scottish success through Scottish ambition. We have been in this building for almost a year, which reminds some of us—including me and, I suspect, Jamie Stone—that the culture of doom and despondency is deeply engrained in the Scottish psyche and, in particular, in the psyche of the Scottish media. The achievement of ambitions and visions can be a fairly excruciating experience in that sort of environment.
We are, indeed, a great small country, but we have more than our fair share of small minds, which are always eager to pour scorn on the endeavours of entrepreneurs, football managers and just about everybody else. Scotland has had some remarkable successes over the years, and the enthusiasm of 500,000 visitors to the Holyrood building has already confounded the prophets of doom who wanted this building to be a fiasco. There is a lesson to be learned from all that. It is time to dump the famous Scottish culture of doom and gloom and to take up the First Minister's theme of ambition and optimism.
The First Minister has, rightly, set high ambitions for growth and prosperity. He has said that, where we are already ahead, we should break further away. I cannot resist the invitation to remind colleagues that we have a very valuable industry in Scotland that is miles ahead in the vital task of generating electricity without emitting carbon dioxide. By all means, let us develop the potential of renewable sources of energy—I welcome the announcement that the minister has made today—but it would be sheer folly to sacrifice Scotland's share of Britain's base-load electricity industry. It is imperative that we begin the process of planning for new nuclear generators to replace old, fossil-fuel plant very soon. We must keep Scotland in front in that vital field, and I want to see plans for a Torness B power station sooner rather than later. I have said that before and I will probably say it again.
On the wider issue of planning, I agree with the First Minister that the existing situation is intolerable. My constituency is a development hotspot—which is a far better situation than being an area that is in economic decline. We have been there. We were there for a long time under a Tory Government—never again. We need a planning system that can protect and conserve where that is necessary and appropriate; however, we must create space for new enterprise and new jobs too. Above all, we need to provide affordable rented houses to meet the needs of local families. Important judgments need to be made about sites and designs.
Does the member share my concern that the recent change to pension legislation to allow residential property to be put in personal pensions will disfranchise many young people and will create an even greater shortage of affordable housing?
That is a different issue; I am concentrating on planning right now. We must ensure that land is made available to meet the desperate need in many parts of Scotland.
We have examples of both extremes of planning problem in my constituency of East Lothian. On the one hand, we are besieged by speculative property developers who want to make big profits by building executive villas just about everywhere. On the other hand, we have at least one idiotic manifestation of planning blight. The former Bellevue Hotel in Dunbar has been a burned-out, derelict shell for 16 years. It is a dreadful scar on the skyline of a beautiful seaside town, but it is a listed building and Historic Scotland says that it cannot be demolished. There must be better ways of dealing with such matters and I hope that the Executive's bill will create a new framework for sensible planning in future. I also agree that we need to deal with essential transport developments more efficiently.
The First Minister highlighted the progress that has been made towards the Executive's targets for employment and the reduction of poverty. We have come a long way, but I want to flag up my concerns about one group of workers who are still at risk. I have raised before the issue of foreign workers who are organised by gangmaster agencies. I remain worried about the situation at the Monaghan Mushrooms farm near Drem, where, I am advised, large numbers of people from eastern Europe might be expected to work excessive hours on terms that do not seem to comply with the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board order. Workers' wages might be subject to deductions that take their pay below the national minimum wage. It is difficult to get hard information in a situation in which frightened workers may be unable to speak English and employers' records may be kept somewhere in Ireland.
I repeat that I am worried that an increasing number of foreign workers in Scotland are in a twilight zone in which they can be exploited by unscrupulous employers—and there can be serious knock-on effects for local workers. I think that that is happening in my constituency and there are probably similar situations in the food-processing industry elsewhere in Scotland. I look to the Executive to help to tackle any such abuses. I know that Ross Finnie is aware of the matter because I had a meeting with him about it. The regulatory agencies should watch the sector carefully and I suggest that supermarkets that buy from such suppliers should take an interest in the employment conditions of workers in food production and processing. The exploitation of vulnerable workers is intolerable. Poverty is intolerable for Scots and it should be intolerable for people who come to Scotland to work as well.
I specifically welcome the fact that we will, at last, have some legislation on freshwater fisheries in Scotland. When I was at the Rural Affairs Department five long years ago, I set up the consultation process on promoting and protecting freshwater fisheries. Our rivers and lochs are a wonderful asset for our people and certainly for tourism. I hope that the legislation will take us in that direction.
In conclusion, the Executive's programme is a businesslike programme to promote growth and prosperity. The First Minister and the new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning deserve the Parliament's strong support in delivering that agenda.
As someone who has suffered this debate for seven hours and 45 minutes, I am pleased to be called. I apologise, but I will not take any interventions until I have got my major points across.
I was pleased to read the First Minister's statement on the legislative programme yesterday. About 90 per cent of it is superb and I would go along with it; unfortunately his spin doctors have failed to tell him that more than 20 per cent of the population are senior citizens. In that 32-page statement he had 19 words on the subject:
"Adults who are frail, elderly or vulnerable all deserve to live with dignity and to be treated with respect."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18780.]
Those are his words. The reality is that when someone is in that position the first person at their bedside is a social worker to help them sell their home to pay for their residential care.
I thought the situation was bad enough, but I received an e-mail yesterday that curdled my blood. The situation is affecting the next generation, because the children of people who are in homes are being challenged to come up with £600 a month or else. The e-mail is about South Lanarkshire Council and states:
"We are presently receiving intimidating letters from their legal department intimating that if we do not comply with their ‘in-house' decision my mother's care could be terminated."
Who in the name of heaven are South Lanarkshire Council's legal advisers? Where are they getting that information from? The council is going to terminate the care of someone who is vulnerable and should be respected and treated with dignity, according to the First Minister.
South Lanarkshire Council is incapable of performing even a simple duty like collecting council tax. It has a deplorable record. Millions of pounds are outstanding. The council even pays an outside company to pursue poll tax payments, and we all know how long ago the poll tax was done away with.
The gentleman who sent the e-mail bought his mother's house 16 years ago. Her name is Mrs Cruikshank. Her husband served six years in Burma in the 14th army, which was known as the forgotten army. My goodness, those who went out there and served have been forgotten. She did without his care and companionship for six long years. He had died by the time she reached the age of 80. Her son decided 16 years ago to buy the house and put it in her name, to save her rent and help her life to be a bit better. He was a good son doing something good for his surviving parent.
Eleven years ago, when she was over 80, she put her son's name on the missives and made him owner of the house, probably because over-80s get an additional pension of 25p a week. The extra affluence of five bob a week obviously made her think, "I can manage fine without the house," and she put the house in her son's name. He is now being pursued because she is in a nursing home and needs 24-hour care because she had a stroke last August. South Lanarkshire Council is attempting to obtain £600 per month, because it maintains that the house was sold as a ploy to stop the family paying for her eventual need.
Anyone who buys a home is fully entitled to keep that home and pass it on to those who follow on after them. Stewart Stevenson highlighted the fact that £44 million has been allocated to pay for those unfortunate people who were incarcerated and had to slop out. Has no one ever thought about means testing prisoners? Why must it happen to pensioners but not prisoners? Means test the prisoners and say, "It's cost £30,000 a year to keep you incarcerated. Oh, you have a claim for £8,000 for slopping out. Right, you owe us only 22 grand." The system that applies to students should apply to prisoners, so that when they are employed gainfully a percentage of their earnings is taken until they have repaid the nation the amount of money that it has cost us to keep them in three square meals a day with double glazing, central heating, television and all the other add-ons that they get in prison nowadays.
We are living in a society that is remote from that which was described by our First Minister when he said:
"Adults who are frail, elderly or vulnerable all deserve to live with dignity and to be treated with respect."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18780.]
There is no way that we, who sell people's homes, come anywhere close to respecting our elderly people. The Lib Dems tried—the Sutherland report was nearly implemented—but they drew back. It will cost £5.8 million, according to the best financial advice that we can get, to do away with that anomaly.
Please, let us get our priorities right and get better standing for this Parliament so that we can take the fear away from elderly people who are vulnerable, on their own and praying that they do not get ill. Thank God Andy Kerr is introducing more care in the community and more ancillary services so that a lot of those people will be able to stay at home.
The best that this Parliament has managed to achieve is to say to elderly people, "Sign this document and we will not sell your house until you die and then we will sell it. We will get the first bite of the cherry and we'll take back every penny that you owe us for your residential care." Let us treat elderly people as well as we do those who are incarcerated and let us stop this pathetic nonsense about respect until we gain it from the elderly people in our communities.
I associate myself with many of the remarks about the elderly made by John Swinburne. I have found the debate disgraceful in parts with its knockabout humour. We are talking about prosperity for all when many Scots are caught in the poverty trap; for them, simply getting through the week is a huge ordeal.
When I was at school, I had a history teacher who tried to engage us in his lessons by making us do a compare and contrast exercise. He would give us two contemporary people of historic significance in order that the class could come to some deductive conclusions about their contributions to society.
I will do my own bit of comparing and contrasting using the coalition's legislative programme and the First Minister's statement versus real life. The programme for communities is quickly dealt with because there are only two contentious areas in planning law. Those are applications that are designated as being of national importance to be fast-tracked, which is a euphemism for dispensing with consultation, and third-party rights of appeal in planning, which are to be rejected.
As the coalition position is clear on both of those, the Communities Committee might as well fast-track the bill because, with the in-built Labour-Liberal majority, I can guarantee the stage 3 outcome now—apart from the tweaking of a few conjunctions and adverbs.
As for the First Minister's speech, here are some highlights—or were they lowlights? I will omit the most banal.
"We know that criminal behaviour in adulthood often has its origins in childhood and adolescence."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18776.]
Cure: more legislation.
"We want all children to become healthier, and to do that we are targeting resources",
and
"In 1999, one in three Scottish children were living in poverty. Now the figure is one in four".—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18779-80.]
The target is to eliminate child poverty by 2020 and the First Minister applauds that as being an achievement, rather than as being shameful in an oil-rich, sophisticated, European nation.
"Some 35,000 young people in Scotland between 16 and 19 are not in education, employment or training."—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18778.]
Cure: re-engage with those people. What on earth does that mean?
Let us contrast all that with the real world and not the world according to Jack. I bring in evidence production 1, the Scottish Executive publication, "Indicators of Sustainable Development for Scotland: Progress Report 2005". Indicator 18 is about home life. In 1992, 17 per cent of children were living in workless households. In 2004, 18 per cent of children were living in workless households. There was a marginal improvement in 2001-02, but the figure has worsened since Jack McConnell took over from Henry McLeish.
I quote from the publication:
"Making the most of our greatest resource—our people—means giving every child the best possible start in life. Poverty of income and of opportunity in childhood is more likely to lead to poverty of experience as a young person and adult."
There is no target for that.
I bring in evidence production 2. It is the "Employability Framework for Scotland: Report of the NEET Workstream". NEET is a euphemistic acronym for not in employment, education or training and refers to those 35,000 children between 16 and 19 that I mentioned—14 per cent of the age group. I quote from the NEET report:
"Research indicates that young people aged 16-19 who are NEET for a prolonged period are most likely to encounter persistent problems later in life."
For instance, they are:
"? More than four times more likely to be out of work
? Three times more likely to have depression and mental health issues
? Five times more likely to have a criminal record
? Six times less likely to have any qualifications".
Ironically, the authors say on the front of the report:
"Publication is not an undertaking that the Scottish Executive will implement their recommendations."
The report describes a world that is very different from that of the knockabout debate that I have heard so much of today, on what Scotland is supposedly doing. This is not talking Scotland down. This is a reality check—a reality check that John Swinburne gave the chamber and that I am now giving, too. And I remind John that we have been here not for one year but for six years. Six years and nothing has changed for children and unemployed young people in Scotland.
I will finish with a quote from a speech by the Rev Martin Johnstone on 5 March this year, when he addressed the annual general meeting of the Scottish League of Credit Unions. In his speech, he quoted Seebohm Rowntree, who 100 years ago said:
"‘That in this land of abounding wealth, during a time of perhaps unexampled prosperity, probably more than one fourth of the population are living in poverty, is a fact which may well cause great searchings of the heart. There is surely need for a greater concentration of thought by the nation upon the wellbeing of its own people, for no civilisation can be sound or stable which has at its base this mass of stunted life. The suffering may be all but voiceless, and we all remain ignorant of its extent and severity, but when once we realise it we see that social questions of profound importance await solution.'"
The reverend then added:
"It is staggering, and depressing, that a hundred years later his words are still so clearly appropriate and accurate."
Just as they are, at this moment, in this chamber.
Like many others, I welcome Nicol Stephen to his new post. He is not here at the moment, but I took the opportunity to remind him as he left the chamber that I expect his interest in infrastructure to continue. I will say more about that later.
Without doubt, and as highlighted by some of my colleagues, one of Labour's greatest achievements since being elected to Westminster in 1997 and to Holyrood in 1999 has been to create the conditions for a stable, strong and growing economy. I need only consider my own constituency to know the truth of that. There, and indeed across Scotland, youth unemployment is down—often by a staggering 70 per cent. Long-term unemployment is down by more than 50 per cent in many areas. The numbers in work are up and at an all-time high, and are among the highest in Europe. Mortgages are at their lowest level for more than 40 years.
Like many members of the Opposition, I am always interested in statistics and comparisons. However, although "it is better there than it is here" is a mantra that we always hear, I believe and my constituents believe, because of the evidence that we see every day, that Scotland has a strong and growing economy. For many people in our communities, that growth has been characterised by their access to employment, sometimes for the first time; for others, it has been characterised by their having more disposable income.
Yes, we have further to go. I am not complacent; I do not think that we should rest on our record. However, unlike the SNP, we do not just carp about the problem and argue for more spending without any idea of how we will pay for it. Also, we did not sleep through the legislation giving low-paid workers a minimum wage.
We need to develop a strong economy to deliver a strong society. I agree with much of what Christine Grahame said; I have long believed that support for growing our economy and achieving social justice are but different sides of the same coin.
In that spirit, and with such an outcome in mind, I welcome the reduction in the business rate poundage and the further reduction for companies engaged in research and development. Those reductions have already been warmly welcomed by businesses in my part of the world—in particular by the small businesses, which sometimes operate at marginal profit levels. The local business profile in my patch is mainly made up of small-scale employers. Those employers often employ fewer than 25 members of staff; indeed, 75 per cent of them employ fewer than 10 members of staff. So the announcement is significant: as well as making Scotland more competitive, it will enable employers to invest, ensure stability and create growth.
One of the key employment sectors in my constituency is tourism. We are fortunate to have the international brand that is Loch Lomond in Scotland's first national park. I am pleased to hear of the legislation that will provide a secure foundation for VisitScotland. I have no doubt that, by bringing together local, national and international marketing efforts, we can truly maximise the very real resonance that Scotland has in many parts of the world and so welcome back the extensive Scottish diaspora and many new visitors too. The De Vere Cameron House Hotel on the banks of Loch Lomond and the prestigious Loch Lomond Golf Club, which are two of the largest tourism-related employers in our patch, are increasing staffing levels at a rate that is higher than the national average. The marketing effort is working.
Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire is keen to push the boundaries further. It is working on destination:Loch Lomond, a project that aims to ensure that we maximise the economic benefits of the national park, not only for the one or two larger businesses that I mentioned but for all businesses in the patch. I hope that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will be supportive of the initiative.
From his previous transport portfolio, the minister will know that I am eager to improve the infrastructure for the increasing tourism interest. The minister is not in the chamber to hear what I have to say, but I will ensure that I tell him. I will remind him of the strategic importance of the A82—the key tourism road in the west of Scotland—which is badly in need of investment and improvement. I trust that he will use his influence with Tavish Scott, the new Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, to ensure that the right infrastructure is put in place to support our growing economy.
Neither minister will be surprised if I mention another transport project. Like the First Minister, I believe passionately in Scottish success. To achieve that, we need to be ambitious—ambitious for our people, communities, businesses and country. The First Minister clearly stated that there would be no limit on the ambition of the coalition and that, where appropriate, we would exceed the terms of the partnership agreement. I agree with him.
Let me offer the Deputy First Minister a suggestion; it is an idea that is shared by my colleagues Trish Godman and Des McNulty, all the local authorities in the west of Scotland including West Dunbartonshire Council, Renfrewshire Council, Argyll and Bute Council and Glasgow City Council. Indeed, it is shared by Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire, the Dunbartonshire Chamber of Commerce—in short, it is shared by everybody in my local area. The suggestion is a simple one: to scrap the tolls on the Erskine bridge. We need no more talk, minister; let us have some action. We want action for the one-person business that spends £3,000 a year on bridge tolls; action for the more substantial global business that spends £70,000 per year on bridge tolls; and action for the unemployed person who cannot afford the cost of travel in order to get to employment.
Jackie Baillie is on to a good point. We have scrapped the tolls on the Skye bridge, let us scrap the tolls on the Forth bridge too. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I will leave it to members from the respective areas to make that point. The member will forgive me if I press ahead with my point on the Erskine bridge. What follows thereafter is a matter for the Executive.
I look forward to the Executive removing barriers to employment and those that hold back local businesses. I also look forward to it making a concerted and focused effort to help the economy of the west of Scotland. Scrapping the tolls on the Erskine bridge would also help to ease congestion on the main road crossings on the Clyde. Come on, minister; let us just scrap the tolls.
If I may, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will look to the future and tell the chamber briefly about the encouraging dynamic global entrepreneurs programme, which is supported by the Executive. The EDGE programme brought together 48 students from Dunbartonshire schools, the University of Glasgow and Columbia University in New York. It was a tremendous experience; the young people came together to learn about business and entrepreneurship through business growth consultation. In coming together, they leaned much more than simple entrepreneurship; they learned how to be global citizens. The results were positive, not only for the American students but for the students from Scotland. They emerged confident, dynamic people who will possibly be the entrepreneurs of the future. They deserve our support. By investing in people like them—not only in my constituency but across Scotland—we invest in Scottish success in the future.
Last night, a local, small-scale, independent shopkeeper, who has previously expressed to me his worries about the amount of money that he was paying in business rates, complimented me on the business rates proposals in the Scottish Executive's programme. He reckoned that the announcement was tremendous, especially as I had only been an MSP for a short time. Given that I was simply purchasing a few goods, it was not the best time to explain that the move was not due directly to my presence in Holyrood, but the man's words underlined to me just how much the measure means to small-scale business people.
Thanks to the Liberal Democrats' introduction of rates relief for small businesses, some two thirds of companies and retail businesses were never exposed to the higher rates in Scotland. That was especially important in rural areas, which can hardly be mentioned these days without the adjective "fragile". However, now that the rate poundage is moving towards what it is south of the border, all those who are involved in wealth creation and the economy will benefit. Rates are but one of the financial hurdles that businesses have to face and the move towards a unified rate will help during the difficult trading times that it seems lie ahead of us. Recent upward surges in the price of fuel and the many oil-based products that are part of our lives underline the necessity of helping the Scottish business community as much as possible.
The proposal to provide a special reduction in rates to companies that are involved in research and development is a sensible and sound move for a country that has, in the past three centuries, provided far more than its fair share of groundbreaking scientific work. It is an investment for the future not only of Scotland, but, we hope, of the wider world.
In his speech this afternoon, the Deputy First Minister, Nicol Stephen, concentrated on a major new renewable energy initiative that will widen the range of options that this country can use to secure its future. With announcements such as the one that the Deputy First Minister made today, I have no doubt that Scotland will be generating one fifth of its energy from renewable sources by the end of this decade and that, once that level is reached, we can improve on it.
We have heard the Deputy First Minister state that it is his ambition that Scotland should lead the way in renewable energy. As well as bringing economic benefits, that position would place us on the moral high ground in relation to our commitment to tackling climate change.
Fergus Ewing, who has had to leave, talked about fuel costs. That issue is not all bad news, as high oil prices increase the economic viability of many of the oil fields in the North sea. They also give an added thrust to the economics of renewables, a point that will not be lost on the open mind of the new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning.
I fully agree with Christine May's plea for woodland grant scheme support in Scotland to be raised to the English level. That, and the rising price of oil, will allow a major biomass project in Fife to go ahead. The rising price of oil will also bring into the sphere of discussion the creation of biodiesel in Scotland. Currently, we have the absurdity of set-aside land on which nothing but weeds are grown. However, if we were sensible, we would recognise that this country has an opportunity to move into the biodiesel area.
Murdo Fraser expressed his concern about the loss of young talent. He is uniquely placed to make such a comment, as the only area in which I see truth in his statement is in the Conservative party. However, I am glad that he spent most of his speech reading out Liberal Democrat policies.
I congratulate Wendy Alexander on her political contribution this afternoon and on her projected contribution to the Scottish population. I must warn her that she can expect a card from the SNP, which is seemingly obsessed with the Scottish population. That comes with its use of Norway as a model economy. The SNP has missed the fact that there are now more than 1 million economic migrants in the UK and that Scotland has its share of that number. There is now a fluidity in the European Union labour market that never existed previously. With the Scottish Executive putting in place benign business conditions—the new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has promised to cut red tape—the required workforce is available.
John Home Robertson expressed worries about the other side of that coin—the possibility that young people may be abused as a result. However, many of the young people who are already here are earning well above the minimum wage rate. By all means, let us sort out the bad mushrooms in the bag, but we must not smother business with more regulation.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposed tourism bill in the Scottish Executive programme because it emphasises the importance of the tourism industry to the economy. Scotland has moved from its previous manufacturing and primary industry base towards the service sector. The more money-spending tourists whom we can persuade to visit the country, the more financially successful we will be.
The reform of the planning system that is included in the Scottish Executive's programme is also overdue, as lengthy delays in the planning process are preventing major capital works from being carried out within set timescales. I agree with John Home Robertson that, in any reform, a delicate balance must be struck and that local democracy must not be steamrollered by state priorities. We must watch that issue when considering the proposed planning bill.
Although there is not a single croft in the Mid Scotland and Fife area, I welcome the coming crofting reform bill, which is the last piece of the land legislation jigsaw. The first session of the Parliament achieved considerable reform of agricultural legislation.
The Scottish Executive programme has been heavily influenced by the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which is to the betterment of Scotland. I welcome the programme, especially those parts of it that will fire up the country's economic engine-room.
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I look forward to hearing Malcolm Chisholm championing enterprise in Scotland in his summing up.
As Andrew Arbuckle said, many excellent speeches have been made today, along with some that were not so excellent. In particular, I praise my colleague Murdo Fraser for his excellent speech. I also want to put on record officially that that young Turk officially enters middle age this weekend.
The Scottish Conservatives believe that, ultimately, a dynamic and competitive economy is the only means of creating wealth and, therefore, of improving living standards and raising the quality of our public services. We were delighted yesterday to hear the good news on business rates, which followed Tory demands. We hope that the proposed planning bill will be as helpful in supporting business development, enterprise and housing development—an issue that is regularly raised by our colleague John Home Robertson. It must also ensure that there are fair and meaningful consultations.
I want to concentrate on the part of the legislative programme that falls within the remit of the Communities Committee, of which I am a member. We support the proposal for local authorities to be statutorily required to update development plans every five years. However, we need to know from the minister what sanctions local authorities will face if they do not keep their plans up to date. In the past, we have seen that the spirit in which the Parliament understands legislation is not always the same as that in which local councils implement it. I do not agree with everything that John Swinburne said today, but he was right to point out that much of what we understood to be included in the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 is not being implemented.
A previous Audit Scotland report showed that, of 32 local authorities, only two achieved the Executive's target of deciding on 80 per cent of planning applications within two months. What is being done to address delays in the planning system? If 30 out of 32 local authorities ignore the objective of having up-to-date local plans, what will happen to them? Already, 30 out of 32 local authorities ignore the Government targets on planning applications.
There are too many deviations from local plans. In members' weekly surgeries, people constantly contrast the local plan with the proposals that they face. Our newest MSP, Derek Brownlee, has said that planning applications are one of the main problems that he has had to deal with in his surgeries since becoming an MSP. A recent example of the problem is the situation that confronts the Dalfaber action group, which is responding to the latest application to build houses on the outskirts of Aviemore. I understand that the proposal to build 650 houses there in the near future deviates considerably from the agreed local plan.
Planning is always a controversial issue, but nowhere is that more true than in the Highlands and Islands at the moment, where there is a proliferation of wind farm applications, as well as the proposal to upgrade the national grid transmission line from Beauly to Denny. Although some of the proposed developments have the backing and support of communities, there is no doubt that many do not. The blight of wind farms and megapylons that is affecting the landscape is a huge issue. The Executive, Highland Council and the island councils will need to work closely with communities in discussing not only the route of the Beauly to Denny transmission line, but the impact that each pylon will have in the highly sensitive areas south of Beauly and in the Cairngorms national park.
Although people in urban areas will be consulted on development plans for the designation of land, I hope that the review of, and consultation on, renewable energy will include the designation of land for wind farm development so that communities will be involved in the consultation process before applications are made rather than have to respond to myriad applications once they have been submitted.
In our legislative programme, it is important that we listen to people and respond to them. As many members have said both yesterday and today, the Parliament should be judged on the quality rather than on the quantity of the bills that it deals with.
This week, Arneil Johnston's "Evaluation of the Single Survey Pilot" was published. I am sorry that some of my Communities Committee colleagues are not here today, because the single survey has become one of my hobby-horses. The report contains some interesting conclusions. Seventy-four single surveys were carried out—that total is only 1,926 short of the original target of 2,000.
Let us listen to what a public sector housing consultancy firm tells us in its evaluation. One purpose of the single survey was to improve the marketability of a property. It is interesting to read that
"from the limited evaluation possible it would appear that the existence of a Single Survey is not considered by sellers to improve the marketability of properties".
Another purpose of the single survey was to ensure that more maintenance and repair would be done prior to selling, but the evaluation states:
"it appears that generally sellers carry out only minor/general repairs or improvements and respondents indicated they would have done this regardless of the Single Survey".
On successful purchasers, the report says:
"given the very limited sample it is impossible to say anything authoritatively about the experiences of successful purchasers".
On non-purchasers, it is stated:
"it was inconclusive whether the Single Survey influenced the decision of a potential purchaser whether or not to bid".
In the opinion of selling agents,
"purchasers were more interested in the valuation … and … it was inconclusive as to whether the Single Survey product had a positive impact on the transaction time".
The majority of surveyors who took part in the evaluation said that they strongly believed that
"the Single Survey will not have a positive impact on improving the condition and energy efficiency of private sector housing in Scotland",
but that was the main reason for having a single survey. I hope that the minister will listen to the evaluation and consultation and to his own consultants when we do further work on the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
The debate has been about growth and prosperity for all. I begin my remarks in concluding for the Scottish National Party with some points about what I think are genuine impediments to growth and prosperity for all within my constituency. I will concentrate on three issues.
We cannot overestimate the significance of Scottish Water as an impediment to economic growth in our communities. In countless communities in my constituency, nothing can happen unless Scottish Water's infrastructure is improved. I know that an investment programme is coming, but ministers must accelerate the pace of improvement to give us some prospect of economic growth.
There has been a wee bit of hilarity today about the situation in Scotland's agriculture sector, but whichever part of the agriculture sector we consider, whether cereals, beef or milk production, we will find that it is faced with the prospect of serious economic difficulties. I hope that, for once in his life, Mr Ross Finnie is on top of the situation and aware of the extent of the difficulties that the sector faces.
The third impediment to economic growth and prosperity for all in my constituency is the situation with transport improvements. I know that the Deputy First Minister has now been relieved of his responsibilities for transport, but the same transport improvements that the Executive delayed, slowed up and did not progress under the term of office of Mr Stephen are still slow and not progressing under the tenure of Tavish Scott. Whoever is running the Scottish Development Department, if that is what it is called, must improve its performance if we are to deliver for our country's communities. In that respect, not a stitch of legislation is required to make that happen; civil servants just have to get on with the job and ministers have to ensure that they do it.
To turn to the major part of the debate, the heart of the criticism that was levelled at the Scottish National Party by Wendy Alexander—I am delighted that she is back in the chamber today—was about the coherence of our position. Her concern was our charge that the Government has proposed an incoherent programme. The centrepiece of the Government programme that was announced yesterday is, undeniably, the reduction in business rates. It should not be a surprise to members that I warmly welcome that step. However, on 23 September 2004—hardly an age ago—the First Minister said:
"Businesses in Scotland do not pay a higher rate of business rates than businesses south of the border pay."—[Official Report, 23 September 2004; c 10544.]
I ask members not to attack my party for a lack of coherence when the need for the central part of the Government's economic programme was being denied in reality by the First Minister on 23 September 2004.
Mr McMahon shakes his head, so I will give him another quote, back from the realms of 1999. On 15 December of that year, Mr McConnell stated:
"It is rubbish to suggest that any Scottish business will pay more than any equivalent business south of the border".—[Official Report, 15 December 1999; c 1500.]
It was denial then and it was denial last September.
The First Minister has had to do the U-turn of his life and I am glad that Mr McMahon is going to explain it.
The explanation is very simple: Scotland's businesses were not disadvantaged in 2004 and they will be greatly advantaged by the reduction now.
So the denial goes on. Mr McMahon should read the First Minister's statement. He should accept that Scottish businesses were being penalised and that the First Minister has righted the wrong that he created.
On the coherence of the Government's programme, I am not the only person to have had it whispered in my ear in the past 24 hours that the initiative on business rates was not some great planned escapade, but was agreed 24 hours before the Government announced it in the Parliament.
It was on the back of a fag packet.
I do not think that we are allowed back-of-the-fag-packet calculations any more—much to my pleasure, I must say—but it certainly feels as though the policy was made on the back of a fag packet or an envelope.
In this afternoon's debate, several important points have been made, but let me concentrate on two that relate to the economic health of our country. Jim Mather highlighted the fact that 20.5 per cent of our potential workforce is economically inactive. Christine Grahame—in a very fine speech—made some important comments about the proportion of our young people who are not engaged in training, employment or economic activity. Although those statistics were airbrushed out of the debate as if my two distinguished colleagues had just invented them, they are facts that we ignore at our peril. Unless we tackle those problems, we will never tackle the underlying economic ill health of our country. In answer to Shiona Baird's question about why we focus so much on economic growth, we do so because 20.5 per cent of our working population is economically inactive. Such people are unable to work and, therefore, unable to obtain the esteem that all of us are privileged to achieve from our working life.
Another important point arose from the altercation about Scottish Power during First Minister's question time. Given Mr Fraser's continuation of that discussion in this afternoon's debate, let me say that I believe that it is important that companies such as Scottish Power remain headquartered in Scotland and that we do not lose such facilities. Our experience from every previous takeover is that we haemorrhage big, good, attractive jobs—the well-paid jobs—if the headquarters do not remain in Scotland. We ignore that threat at our peril. I want to ensure that we have broadly based employment opportunities for everyone. We need well-paid jobs and other jobs for people in our society.
We have also had a great debate about economic performance. Yesterday, the First Minister told us that he is no longer interested in comparisons with the rest of the United Kingdom, but he is probably not interested in that because Scotland's economic performance continues to trail that of the rest of the UK. That is not a whinge but a fact. Other countries such as Finland, Sweden, Norway and Ireland—all of which are small independent European countries—have been able to deliver economic performance that is superior to that of our country under devolution.
The First Minister's mantra yesterday was that he wants us to focus on Scottish success based on Scottish ambition. I have spent my entire adult life trying to focus on that aspiration so that we can ensure that our country is able to take the decisions that will create the opportunities to tackle both the economic isolation to which Christine Grahame referred and the problems of economic inactivity that Jim Mather highlighted. However, we will achieve that only when this Parliament has the financial powers to deliver on the expectations of the people.
This has been a good and wide-ranging debate. Nicol Stephen started by outlining some of what we have achieved so far and how we will take action to maintain and build on that momentum by promoting renewables, capital investment and investment in people and skills and by cutting bureaucracy and red tape.
First and foremost, I want to talk about how we connect economic growth with the prosperity and well-being of everyone, especially those who may be left behind because of who they are or where they live. It is vital that we have growth and prosperity so that we can close the opportunity gap. Providing routes out of poverty and ensuring equal opportunities can contribute, in turn, to further growth and prosperity. We have made good progress in tackling low-income poverty in Scotland in partnership with the UK Government. For example, 100,000 children and 100,000 pensioners have been lifted out of relative poverty. Of course, there is much more to do—we need to tackle poverty in its widest sense.
Our approach of closing the opportunity gap focuses on where we can make the biggest difference to poverty and deprivation within our devolved powers. That means that we bring together our efforts to improve people's health: ensuring that children have a good start in life; supporting young people to help them to achieve everything that they can at school and to assist them in the transition to adult life; and ensuring that everyone has access to the financial services that they need to avoid unmanageable debt. That also drives us to ensure that we have strong, regenerated communities with access to good-quality housing that is warm and affordable.
For many people, the route out of poverty means increasing their chances of sustained employment, perhaps through boosting their skills and confidence or through other kinds of support to overcome health problems, to find flexible and affordable child care or to manage household finances in the transition to employment. We are working on all those issues and starting to see good results, for example through our working for families programme, which supports parents with child care so that they can improve their position at work or get extra training and qualifications. That shows how our aims for the economy and our aspirations to close the opportunity gap for individuals go hand in hand.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance under the standing orders, in particular under the rule requiring respect towards other members. When a minister is closing a debate and is supposed to be responding to arguments that have been made during that debate, is it consistent with the duty to which I have referred that a minister simply reads out from a pre-prepared text?
The minister is perfectly in order.
I point out to Fergus Ewing that I have never before read out from a pre-prepared text for a closing speech. This is a slightly different kind of debate, in which I have to add extra dimensions from my portfolio, emphasising that the debate is about growth for a purpose and growth and prosperity for all.
We are completing an employability framework for Scotland, which deals with the issue of economic activity, which Jim Mather highlighted, and with the not in education, employment or training group—the NEET group—which Christine Grahame highlighted. I am also driving forward an important piece of work on race equality and employment to tackle the inequalities that exist for ethnic minorities in the Scottish labour market.
Our approach is all about creating the conditions in which economic opportunities can be realised and exploited to generate growth. It is also about ensuring that such opportunities deliver real benefits for the most deprived neighbourhoods in Scotland, joining up opportunity and need. If we are to succeed in that, we must work to tackle the multiple needs of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods so that they are better able to take advantage of opportunity and participate in growth.
One key way of achieving that is through the community regeneration fund—a single integrated fund worth more than £318 million—which will support strategic and sustained intervention in the most disadvantaged communities. Over the next month or so, I hope to complete the process of approving outcome agreements for the three years to 2008 for every community planning partnership in Scotland. In the autumn, we intend to publish a wide-ranging policy statement on regeneration to stimulate a broad debate on the way ahead.
In our partnership agreement, we promised to reform the planning system to strengthen the involvement of communities, to speed up decisions, to better reflect local views and to allow quicker investment decisions. The ambitious and wide-ranging package of reforms that we have put forward in the white paper, "Modernising the Planning System", will achieve that and more. We will deliver a planning system that is fit for the 21st century and that is better, fairer and more balanced.
I have already said in the Parliament that it is our intention to reform the planning system, not tinker with it. We want a plan-led system that really works. That means a system that delivers the right kind of growth: smart and sustainable growth, bringing investment and jobs, together with essential infrastructure, housing, schools and hospitals. It means a system that regenerates communities and listens to what local people say about the impact on their lives and environment. That is why we are proposing a planning system with a new hierarchy headed by an enhanced national planning framework, with a range of measures to improve the efficiency of the planning system and the effectiveness of enforcement; radical initiatives to ensure that all interests, including those of local people, are properly included in planning decisions; and an approach that emphasises that development must be sustainable, as Shiona Baird rightly emphasised, in social, environmental and economic terms.
Do I have one or two minutes left, Presiding Officer?
Three.
That is even better.
The efficiencies that planning reforms can deliver will have a positive effect on the delivery of new housing, which John Home Robertson emphasised. That includes affordable housing to help build our communities and maintain a strong, prosperous Scotland. Improved development plans, together with good-quality, up-to-date local housing strategies, should ensure that councils use the planning system effectively to meet housing need successfully over the longer term. John Swinney reminded us of the water constraint that has bedevilled housing development in recent years, but that has of course been dealt with by the announcement before the summer of a massive investment programme.
We are undertaking a range of actions to help meet the aspirations in our communities. Many people aspire to be homeowners, and I know how difficult it can be for first-time buyers to get on to the property ladder. Earlier this year, we announced the homestake scheme to ease access into home ownership for those who aspire to own, but find that market prices are often beyond their reach. We are now almost halfway through the first year of the Executive's improved three-year investment programme for affordable housing. That will provide more than 16,500 homes for affordable rent and nearly 5,000 homes for low-cost home ownership by 2008.
We have seen some of the key political dividing lines in today's debate. First the Tories, through Murdo Fraser, restated their obsession with slashing the public sector rather than releasing cash savings in the public sector to reinvest in the front line as we are doing. John Swinney reminded us of the Tories' dismal record on growth in the 1980s and 1990s, which contrasts with growth today; Scotland is outstripping France, Germany and the euro zone, as Wendy Alexander reminded us, and more people are in work in Scotland today than in 23 of the 25 European countries.
As for the SNP, again we saw Jim Mather being obsessed with more powers for this Parliament rather than with doing the right and best thing with the powers that we have. That is what we are doing to achieve growth with a purpose and enhance prosperity for all. That is what we are doing throughout the legislative programme, and I commend it to the chamber.
There being no questions to be put as a result of today's business, we move straight to members' business.