Regeneration Strategy
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01336, in the name of Alex Neil, on the regeneration strategy.
I call on Alex Neil to speak to and move the motion. Mr Neil, you have 14 minutes—it is an extremely generous 14 minutes.
14:37
Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I will try to use it as productively as possible, as always.
Regeneration of Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas—
Excuse me, minister, could you sit down for a moment?
The minister’s microphone is not on. Will broadcasting please put it on? Perhaps the minister could move to the next desk.
It is on now.
Indeed it is.
I again call on Alex Neil to speak to and move the motion. You still have 14 minutes, but it is now not such a generous 14 minutes.
I will add injury time.
Regeneration of Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas and strengthening of our communities are key priorities for the Scottish Government. We are committed to ensuring equality of opportunity and support for the places and people who need it. Our vision is of a Scotland in which our most disadvantaged communities are supported and where all places are sustainable and promote wellbeing. The Scottish Government’s regeneration strategy, which I will publish shortly, will set out the Government’s plans for delivering that vision in partnership with our stakeholders.
Since 2007, this Government has invested significant amounts of money in regeneration—I will talk more about some of that investment in a moment. Together with our public, private and third-sector partners, and alongside communities themselves, we have achieved some notable successes, but over the years our collective efforts have not been enough. Too many of Scotland’s people still live in communities that are suffering the effects of deprivation, high unemployment and disadvantage, where too many people are not in work and have low educational attainment, where crime and fear of crime are too high, where the physical environment is poor and where people still die far younger than their fellow Scots.
The regeneration strategy will reinvigorate efforts to change that. I make it clear that the strategy will not offer a silver bullet—there are no silver bullets—but we will re-energise our regeneration policy and focus on the priority areas that the evidence tells us are vital to success.
Those priorities include a focus on tackling area-based deprivation by reforming the way in which mainstream resources are used and by working together more effectively; a stronger focus on community-led regeneration as a way of delivering the change that local people want; and a commitment to ensuring that the right type of funding and other support are in place at national and local levels to support Scotland’s communities to flourish. I will talk about each of those strategic priorities later.
I turn now to the investment so far. This Scottish Government has invested record levels of funding to improve the physical and economic fabric of our cities, towns and villages. In the face of unprecedented Westminster cuts, we have continued to provide support to the communities that need it most.
We have developed the £50 million JESSICA—joint European support for sustainable investment in city areas—fund in partnership with the European Investment Bank, and we have, since 2007, invested more than £90 million in Scotland’s urban regeneration companies, which has already secured more than 1,300 new jobs. A further £25 million investment is planned in 2012-13, with priority being given to Clyde Gateway in recognition of its key role in securing an economic legacy for the 2014 Commonwealth games.
We have supported 89 town centres with £60 million of funding from our town centre regeneration fund, and we have invested more than £40 million to tackle the issue of vacant and derelict land in some of our most deprived communities. We have made a commitment to establish four enterprise areas in Scotland to support economic growth, and we have brought forward tax increment financing pilot projects in partnership with the Scottish Futures Trust as a way of unlocking private sector investment in local areas.
We have invested about £700,000 in the past three years in the Development Trusts Association Scotland to support communities in owning assets. In addition, our investments in skills development, employability, housing, transport, renewables and other infrastructure projects all help to ensure that disadvantaged communities can access new opportunities.
Despite those investments, however, there is much more to be done and many challenges to face. Earlier this year, I published a regeneration discussion paper—“Building a Sustainable Future”—that kick-started the debate about the future of regeneration in the current economic climate. More than 70 written responses were received, and a wide range of stakeholders engaged through a series of events. A number of key themes emerged from those discussions. They included the need for a clear vision for regeneration policy; clarification of the roles that different organisations have in delivering regeneration; support for a co-ordinated local and national approach to tackling area-based deprivation; the importance of community-led regeneration; the need for continued funding; and support for town centres as a central part of community life. I expect those themes to feature in today’s debate and I assure members that the themes have shaped the development of the regeneration strategy and are at the heart of the Government’s approach to future regeneration.
I mentioned the three key priority areas that will form the strategy and I will speak about each in turn. First, there will be a renewed approach to tackling area-based disadvantage. Respondents to the regeneration discussion paper recognised that addressing the deeply ingrained economic, physical and social issues that some of Scotland’s communities face requires a sustained and co-ordinated approach across the public sector and its partners.
I recognise and support the good work that is being progressed at local level: a key aspect of the regeneration strategy will be to build on that localised approach, which will include working with public-sector partners to raise the profile of efforts throughout the country to tackle area-based disadvantage, and to promote and encourage best practice and culture change in the public sector in order to join up mainstream resources and services to tackle area-based disadvantage.
The strategy will also involve working with local authorities to identify barriers to delivery and opportunities to strengthen skills and capacity. We will lead the way in developing better partnership working between the public and private sectors and in improving collaboration between public-sector agencies.
Secondly, there will be a stronger focus on community-led regeneration. Strong, engaged and empowered communities are vital to Scotland’s success. The regeneration strategy will place support for community-led regeneration at the heart of the approach, because we recognise that the changes that are required to make all communities sustainable will be achieved in the long run only through a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach.
Through the regeneration strategy, we are committed to supporting community-led regeneration in order, first, to grow the number and strength of locally controlled enterprising community organisations that act as anchors for regeneration; secondly, to support locally based organisations to take on ownership of viable assets; and thirdly, to help people to organise and respond to the challenges in areas where capacity is low. Community-led regeneration is about local people identifying for themselves the issues and opportunities in their areas, deciding what to do about them, and being responsible for delivering the action that will make a difference.
We are starting from a strong position. An impressive range of activities is already taking place across urban and rural communities, led by organisations such as development trusts and community-based housing associations. The regeneration strategy will build on that strength through a range of new and existing support from both the Scottish Government and partner organisations including the Big Lottery Fund Scotland. We are at the early stages of developing proposals for the community empowerment and renewal bill. Through a wide-ranging dialogue, we are exploring how legislation can help communities to own certain public-sector assets, to have their voices heard on local decisions and to tackle vacant and derelict properties in those communities. We expect to consult on proposals next spring.
I agree with the minister that we need to take a community-based bottom-up approach as far as that is possible. However, in the case of regeneration projects such as Ravenscraig, which does not have a community in which to begin the regeneration, does he agree that the Scottish Government needs to have a greater say? Does he agree that the decision in 2008 to downgrade Ravenscraig to a regional priority prevented the project from having the impetus that it requires?
As the member will know, the Scottish Government has given priority to Ravenscraig; indeed, it is the subject of one of our TIF pilot projects. Along with North Lanarkshire Council, we are determined to work together with everybody involved to make it successful.
My third point is that investing in the economic potential of our communities is also vital. That covers a broad spectrum of activity, including support for projects that deliver physical and economic change, including and especially jobs. That is not an easy task. The limited availability of public-sector funding and private-sector resource means that our funding models need to change and become more innovative, with a move towards financing and investment, as opposed to grant, where possible.
Nonetheless, we will confirm a range of support in the strategy, including confirmation that JESSICA—Scotland’s regeneration loan fund—is open for business. The fund currently totals £50 million and it is anticipated that it will be recycled up to three times in 10 years. There will be continued support for Scotland’s urban regeneration companies in the short term, building on their considerable success to date, and a move to more flexible capital funding for them in the medium term, which will be focused on enabling infrastructure and town centre support. There will be funding to enable local authorities to tackle vacant and derelict land, continued support to enable registered social landlords to carry out their regeneration role and continued support to enable coalfield communities to grow in strength and access opportunities to prosper. In addition, we will continue to work with the private sector and other partners to develop new and innovative methods of funding, building on the initial approach through JESSICA.
The three priority areas of tackling area-based disadvantage, strengthening community-led regeneration and investing in the economic potential of our communities will form the basis of the strategy that will focus the efforts of the Scottish Government on ensuring that all Scotland’s communities are sustainable and promote wellbeing and that, in the pursuit of sustainable economic growth, no one is left behind.
In my view, the central issue is to safeguard existing jobs and to create as many new jobs as we can. Access to decent jobs and reasonable income is an absolute prerequisite for the success of any regeneration strategy at local and national levels. That is why we have given such priority to attracting new investment in Scotland and why earlier this year Ernst & Young classified Scotland as the best location in the whole United Kingdom for new investment. The jobs that go with that are crucial to the success of regenerating the deprived communities.
The actions within the strategy will contribute directly to the Scottish Government’s overarching purpose of sustainable economic growth and increased job opportunities. However, I am clear that the Scottish Government alone cannot deliver regeneration. If it is possible to get cross-party support for our strategy, we would very much welcome it. Successful regeneration is dependent on a wide range of organisations and individuals working together—I believe that that includes the political parties. It relies on co-ordinated action that encompasses economic, physical and social aspects, along with input from the public, private and third sectors and—crucially—the communities themselves.
We are committed to working with partners to deliver on the actions that will be identified within the strategy and to delivering change for the communities that need it most. I hope that, today, the Parliament will support us in that commitment.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges that in the current challenging financial climate it is imperative that there is a strategic vision for the regeneration of the most disadvantaged communities across Scotland; acknowledges the importance of regeneration to The Government Economic Strategy and the Scottish Government’s ambition to create a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, and recognises that successful regeneration relies on a wide variety of organisations and agencies working together and an increased role for communities themselves to help them improve their circumstances.
I now call Michael McMahon to speak to and move motion S4M-01336.1. Mr McMahon, you have a generous 10 minutes.
14:52
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing the debate to Parliament this afternoon, but I do so with a sense of déjà vu. Last week, Patricia Ferguson and I led from these seats on a debate that centred on a fairly anodyne, if not utterly mundane, motion on the importance of architecture in relation to matters such as the creation, development and sustainability of local communities. It turned out to be an enjoyable and informative debate and I hope that this afternoon’s debate around an equally bland, if not insipid, motion is as good.
My sense of déjà vu is not, however, restricted to recollections of last week’s discussion, but comes from a debate that was held in the previous session on regeneration. In that debate, I noted that the Government motion contained predictable platitudes, but that
“the issue under discussion is hugely important and cannot be hidden, even under the banality of the motion.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2010; c 24170.]
So, here we are again, debating a hugely significant issue around a motion that barely nods in the direction of just how vital regeneration is to Scotland, to its current and future economic prospects and to the wellbeing of our communities. As I said in the previous debate:
“I am not saying that the Government has got it wrong on ... regeneration”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2010; c 24171.]
Similarly, I am not saying that the Government has nothing to defend in that regard, and we really could have had a more substantive motion on what the Government believes has to be done.
It would also have been good to see in the motion or have heard in Mr Neil’s speech a sense of humility or even an apology, with the cabinet secretary recognising that he was overseeing a reduction in regeneration funding for vital projects in the period ahead. For example, why is there no recognition that the ring-fenced budget for all URCs other than Clyde Gateway now only goes up to 2012-13 and that after that Riverside Inverclyde, Irvine Bay Regeneration Company and Clydebank Re-built will all have to bid for funding as part of the wider regeneration strategy, and that they no longer have guaranteed funding beyond 2012-13, even though they were originally guaranteed 10 years of funding?
I note the point that Michael McMahon is making, but I wonder whether anyone is guaranteed funding at this time. Surely, when the budget has been cut so severely by Westminster, the starting point is that everything is being cut.
John Mason has to identify his priorities. On an issue as important as regeneration, we can say that some budget lines have to be protected more than others. The cuts that we are seeing in the regeneration budget and URCs are well in excess of what is required.
Will the member give way?
I would like to make some progress.
With the budgets of some regeneration programmes being cut in half, we cannot allow the Scottish National Party Government to get away with blaming Westminster for its decision to prioritise a referendum over regeneration.
With the Ravenscraig project in my area of Lanarkshire already downgraded by this Government in 2008 and £70 million of funding being taken from it at a stroke, it is easy to see the direct correlation between this Government's decisions to reduce support for regeneration and a direct negative impact on areas such as mine.
My constituency of Uddingston and Bellshill is home to some of the country’s largest construction companies and there are more people employed in construction in my area than there are in any other in Scotland, so I recently had a meeting with representatives of construction companies to discuss the current employment situation with them. The picture that they painted of the impending decimation of jobs in that sector is frightening.
It is bad enough to learn that Mr Neil intends to make himself a latter day Dr Beeching with his rail franchise proposals, but it is worse to learn that he is taking a lead from Arnold Schwarzenegger, not in terms of his political leadership, but in his role as “Demolition Man”, when it comes to urban regeneration companies.
I know that times are hard financially, but that is why resources that are available from central Government and local government need to be used smartly to maximise positive outcomes for people and to create virtuous cycles of education, employment, equity, civic pride and community cohesion. That is why our amendment focuses on the creation of jobs, particularly for young people. As we state:
“persistent youth unemployment will have an impact on communities for generations to come.”
There has to be a place for community enterprises, credit unions, co-operatives, housing associations and other community-based organisations in regeneration strategies. The bottom line, however, is that the Government simply cannot choose to slash the housing, regeneration, enterprise and tourism budgets and still claim to have sustainable growth as its purpose, as it is trying to do.
Neighbourhoods frame people’s lives, and provide a bundle of services that people need and an environment on which families depend. They also provide a vital anchor to individual lives, as the cabinet secretary pointed out. That is why our amendment asks Parliament to recognise that the cutting of funding for further education colleges will undermine the important role that colleges play in providing local people with the skills that they need to gain the qualifications that they need for work.
That is why we highlight that the provision of quality social housing is increasingly important as more people in our disadvantaged communities are classified as being fuel poor. Finally, it is why our amendment notes with disappointment that the Scottish Government has chosen to cut the funding to URCs, which will have a negative impact on areas such as Inverclyde, and why we are calling on the Scottish Government to come forward with details about its cities strategy and proposed enterprise areas as soon as possible. We will give those elements our support, because they are vital, but there will have to be constructive dialogue to ensure that we all move together in the same direction.
As I have said previously on this subject, Government must create the space and capacity to assist communities in regeneration of their areas, and the planning framework is central to that.
We know that communities need access to funds to help them regenerate their areas, to bring derelict properties and waste ground into productive use and to promote community engagement while creating local jobs and training opportunities. However, regeneration is not just about paying for new buildings; it must also increase social justice and quality of life by overcoming poverty and disadvantage and by producing more inclusive, equitable and sustainable areas.
Neighbourhoods help to shape people’s lives because they do more than house people. They form a base for wider activities and provide many of the social services that link individuals with one another and give rise to a sense of community.
Many neighbourhoods that are labelled “disadvantaged” are in areas where there have been major and long-term disruptions to the local economy, often through the closure or shrinkage of major employers. Regeneration programmes can claim some success in terms of the physical renewal of public space, the development of commercial properties in some areas and the provision of new and refurbished homes—although not necessarily on the scale and in the forms that are needed.
As was identified in last week’s debate on architecture, people who live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods tend to feel they have very little influence over what happens to their area, and that the interests of those who fund developments often seem to come first. I am therefore delighted that the cabinet secretary has mentioned the importance of involving communities at the outset of regeneration. There must be a continuing emphasis on housing renewal that is dominated not by the interests of developers but by the needs of communities.
There has been an associated lack of attention paid to the cultivation of social capital and community. We have also seen the continuing provision of housing that does not meet the needs and wishes of families, and there has been a tendency, for various reasons, to go for clean-sweep schemes at the cost of restoration and reintegration. That is a disappointment in too many cases. Regeneration initiatives often promise far more than they can deliver, but they will certainly fail to produce the positive results that we all want if the Government rolls back on any commitment on urban regeneration.
If the Parliament does not wish to see any more backsliding on regeneration, I urge members to support Labour’s amendment.
I move amendment S4M-01336.1, to leave out from second “acknowledges” to end and insert:
“considers that central to this will be the creation of jobs, particularly for young people, as persistent youth unemployment will have an impact on communities for generations to come, the important role that colleges play in local areas to provide people with the skills needed to get them the qualifications that they need to work and the provision of quality social housing, which is increasingly important as more people in disadvantaged communities are classified as fuel poor; notes with disappointment that the Scottish Government has chosen to cut the funding to urban regeneration companies and the impact that this will have on areas such as Inverclyde, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward details of its Cities Strategy and proposed enterprise areas.”
I now call Alex Johnstone to speak to and move amendment S4M-01336.2. Mr Johnstone, you have a generous six minutes.
15:01
It is always nice to be given a generous time limit. Generally, it means that I will have a wander around the subject and end up saying less than I would otherwise have said.
I welcome the fact that the Government moved the motion today. It was criticised by the previous speaker for being anodyne, but what I took from the minister’s opening speech was that he is looking for support across parties. When parties are only too willing to go for one another’s throats, sometimes an anodyne motion is what it takes to find cross-party consensus. The minister has made an excellent start and there is a very strong chance that I might vote for his motion at the end of the day.
The problem we have—and have had for a couple of years now—in debates in this chamber is that they have one fundamental theme: there is no money, and whose fault is it? We have a regular circular habit of blaming one another for the problem. The Labour Party blames the Scottish National Party for all the cuts in Scotland today, and, of course, it is the SNP Government’s fault because it sets the budget. The SNP Government immediately blames the Conservatives—and, occasionally, our Liberal colleagues, who are conveniently missing today—because a Conservative Government, working with the Liberal Democrats, sets the overall funding level that comes north. The Conservatives blame the Labour Party, because a Labour Government undermined the economy and made the spending cuts necessary in the first place. We can each happily and accurately blame one another from now until 5 o’clock, and perhaps beyond, without actually being very wrong. That takes us back to the problem that, regardless of whose fault it is, there is no money. That is the challenge we face.
Will the member take an intervention?
Ah, go on. Why not?
I thank Mr Johnstone for giving way.
Without pointing the finger of blame at anyone, I would say that it is at times such as this when we have to be a little innovative in what we do. Does Mr Johnstone agree that the approach the Government is taking through projects such as retail rocks in Aberdeen and the funding of district heating systems is a way to regenerate communities without huge cost or the need to bring in investment from elsewhere?
There are many examples of success and they were not all achieved under this Government. In Scotland’s history, regeneration has been an on-going theme for many years—for generations, in fact—and there have been some wonderful examples of success as well as some catastrophic failures, and no Government or party has a monopoly over one or the other. That is why, at this difficult time, it is important that we work together to make the best of the difficult circumstances we are in.
I agree with the broad themes that the minister set out. I intend, however, to talk about the things that could be done differently or, perhaps, better. I also hope to speak for a while about some of the things that have come out of the Finance Committee’s inquiry into the budget, which I think might cast some light on the matter.
First, I refer members to my amendment, which, superficially, is just as bland and anodyne as the Government’s motion. Although I do not expect everyone to support it, I will explain its purpose—and seek members’ patience as I try to set out what is a subtle argument.
In the past, when resources have been limited, we have too often decided to target resources for regeneration at areas of greatest need. However, those areas are quite often not the areas that will deliver the greatest benefit from that spend. For a community that desperately needs regeneration, it can sometimes be more effective to spend the money in a neighbouring community to create more jobs and achieve more benefits. In the midst of all our bland talk about targeting areas of greatest need, we must ensure that we get value for money. After all, money is short.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment—I want to develop my argument.
In the past, I have criticised our tendency to be insular with regard to the communities that we represent, and I have argued that, when opportunities arise to create economic growth in an area, although we might very well create the jobs, we cannot persuade Scots to move to where those jobs are. If we cannot achieve results over a longer distance, we might be able to do so on a community-by-community basis.
I was wondering how long it would take the member to tell us to get on our bikes.
Does the member accept that regeneration is not just about economic growth, important though that is, but about the wellbeing of communities? In these days of preventative spending, do we recognise the impact of mass unemployment and poor health outcomes that, I am afraid to say, are the legacy of the previous Conservative Government?
It is clear that, when they look back over history and at the trends that the member has highlighted, both the Conservative and Labour Parties will find it difficult to justify certain aspects of their record in government. However, at a time when we are trying to find ways of taking this issue forward, it is inappropriate to make it party political.
Nevertheless, I am glad that Duncan McNeil has raised the issue of preventative spending and early intervention because the Government obviously intends to move towards both and has made available a significant amount of resource to achieve its aims. However, evidence that the Finance Committee has taken over the past few months has highlighted the difficulties with such an approach. For a start, although there are people in Scotland’s public sector who understand the priority and will be able to target resources to achieve those objectives, others—some at senior level in our local authorities, health boards and other public bodies—got where they are today through managing their silos effectively. If members choose to look, they will find countless examples of people maintaining that silo mentality to this day.
If we are to get any benefit from preventative spending—and we all know what benefits it can bring—we will need more leadership from the Government. We should not simply allocate resources and hope that they work. Although bottom-up approaches are often successful in this area, sometimes the top-down approach is necessary to ensure that things work. I am not entirely sure, but I thought that I heard Michael McMahon say something similar in his speech. If he did, that is at least some common ground between us.
I applaud the Government’s willingness to engage with the private sector on this issue but, as the Finance Committee heard, it appears that people in the sector who might otherwise access funding through JESSICA or TIF are not as aware as they might be of the availability of funding and other such opportunities.
Once again, there is an opportunity for the Government to engage. The policy intention has been stated many times, and it has been stated by the minister once more today. It is of genuine concern to me that I talk to people who still do not get the message.
The generous six minutes that I was allocated has passed by some margin.
There is still much that I would like to raise with the minister and I look forward to the opportunity to do so in future. For the purposes of the debate, I accept the generosity of the minister’s opening remarks. I understand that this is not about allocating blame but about achieving results for some of Scotland’s most deprived communities. We will work with the Government and will vote for the motion at decision time tonight.
I move amendment S4M-01336.2, to insert at end:
“, and further acknowledges that, where difficult choices must be made, regeneration spending should be targeted where it will bring most benefit to the wider community.”
We move to the open debate. I can offer members up to seven minutes for speeches.
15:10
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate.
I will focus my remarks on the need to regenerate the former coalfield communities in my constituency, not because other communities do not require regeneration activity but because the scale of the challenge demands the attention of a Government whose ambition is to provide opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish.
We know that deprivation in Scotland is disproportionately concentrated in the former coalfield areas. Analysis of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation showed that in the final year of the previous Labour Administration, 34 per cent of the data zones in the Ayrshire coalfield were among the worst 20 per cent in Scotland. That is the highest figure for any coalfield area in Scotland. The figure rose to 40 per cent for employment deprivation or worklessness among those actively seeking work and those who have become dependent on state benefits, and to 42 per cent for health deprivation.
Geographic access is a big problem in the Ayrshire coalfield area. Although coalfield communities traditionally grew up in small towns and villages around mines that were located outside the main urban areas, the coalfield settlements in Ayrshire are among the most rural in the United Kingdom. As Alex Johnstone said, there is an issue about trying to match up communities in need with communities in which there are opportunities. There is a disconnect there because we do not have adequate transport between such areas.
Many people have moved away to find work. Communities such as Muirkirk and New Cumnock have suffered significant depopulation, which has accelerated a spiral of decline.
The jobs base has not recovered from the closure of the pits, and new business formation has been lower than average. Despite the exodus of people, the latest available figures for 2007 showed that 3.1 working-age adults were resident in coalfield areas for every job located there. I think it is fair to say that that was a distinctly poor legacy for the incoming SNP Government in 2007 to inherit.
Despite those deep-rooted problems, progress has been made in recent years, with the Scottish Government playing a leading role. That has taken many forms, including continued funding of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which in turn has supported some 30 projects in Cumnock and Doon Valley in the past year. There have been significant improvements to Cumnock town centre through the town centre regeneration fund. The small business bonus scheme has been a major boost, safeguarding and creating local jobs. The Government provided the bridging funding that was vital in securing the commitment of Prince Charles—whom the cabinet secretary knows well—to the Dumfries House Trust. It has also supported, through the sustainable communities initiative, the associated Knockroon development—the creation of a new village, with all the necessary community facilities.
Importantly, the Scottish Government has not acted alone. The area has benefited greatly from a progressive SNP-run council, which has invested in, and is continuing to invest heavily in, new and refurbished schools in New Cumnock, Patna, Littlemill and Sorn; in the Cumnock conservation area regeneration scheme, along with Historic Scotland and other funding parties; and in new community centres in Auchinleck, Netherthird and New Cumnock.
Crucially, investment in physical infrastructure has been accompanied by support for community-led development, including for very large projects such as the Catrine environmental heritage project. The council has backed the Catrine Community Trust to the tune of £230,000, which helped it to secure a grant of £2 million from the Scottish rural development programme for a unique project incorporating heritage-led regeneration and the use of renewable energy to provide a sustainable income stream. The project involves the restoration of a scheduled monument—the River Ayr weir—reuse of redundant hydro turbines, and the development of an education and visitor information centre.
Smaller but no less important projects are springing up across the coalfield communities. Confidence is building and activity is growing. Such activity is proof positive that empowered communities can lead the regeneration process. However, it is particularly important that individuals and groups in our most disadvantaged and fragile communities who make that commitment have access to adequate and appropriate support.
I echo the calls in the briefings for the debate from organisations such as Planning Aid for Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations for community capacity building to be at the core of our new national regeneration strategy. I look forward to that emerging in the next few weeks and to the introduction of the community empowerment and renewal bill in the new year. I expect that we will make a step change in our regeneration efforts in the next few years.
15:17
I am also pleased to be able to take part in the debate and I welcome the minister’s comments about focusing on the hard-pressed communities that are less resilient to the recession and downturn that we face.
Like other members, I know all too well, given the profile of my constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde, that the regeneration game has faced challenges and had difficulties over the years.
With the decline of heavy industry in my community and subsequent mass unemployment, the results have become predictable and evident over time: depopulation, deprivation, poverty, poor health outcomes, and an increase in crime and in drug and alcohol dependency. However, the real result has been the dashing of expectation and ambition in communities, wasted talent and destroyed communities.
Adam Ingram mentioned some figures. Over the years, many quick fixes have been tried in an effort to replace the large number of jobs lost from the shipyards and the engine works. We have learned over time that we cannot simply reverse the decline by replacing industries with something that is not sustainable. We cannot put a Band-aid on a problem that has been caused by years of neglect and decline.
The sunrise industries were a classic example. Electronic manufacturing took up a lot of the slack in places such as Inverclyde and North Ayrshire. Employment in such manufacturing was plentiful but, of course, it was low paid, there was increased casualisation and the legacy, because we did not get the cycle right, is empty factories.
During that process, we created a new class of people who are known as the working poor—those who work for what is now the minimum wage and who cannot provide for their families without state aid. The quick fixes involved big announcements followed by even bigger disappointments. We had the failure of the enterprise zones and the failure of Government and the enterprise agencies to work together. Ambitious community plans were left to gather dust and we could not move on because of disputes about planning and who owned land.
At times during that period, the challenges that we faced in Inverclyde appeared to be almost insurmountable, and it seemed that we could not move on at all. However, at last, we moved on from the quick fixes. They were replaced with a longer-term model—the urban regeneration company, which has a tight focus on the community and is tasked to work across it. The URC model is long term and recognises that we need to invest not just in business, but in the community. Thanks to the URC Riverside Inverclyde, those advances have come to the Inverclyde area. The changes are there for everybody to see. There are new businesses and there has been wider investment in colleges, housing and new schools, which I believe is the result of the thinking and ambition in the URC.
Many members were in Inverclyde during the recent by-election and were confronted by the new Inverclyde and what has been achieved. It might have been a backhanded compliment, but many members took me aside in the Parliament to tell me about the changes that they had noticed, which were not what they had expected. A transformation has taken place.
I cannot argue with the overall thinking in the strategy and the cabinet secretary’s comments, although I suppose that the devil will be in the detail. The benefit of that type of thinking in the URC and of its can-do attitude reaches far beyond the obvious physical improvements in facilities and infrastructure. Riverside Inverclyde has become a catalyst for change in the area and an infectious model for action that has been picked up by other agencies in the Inverclyde community, resulting in changes in schools and housing.
With the necessary support, Riverside Inverclyde can offer much more, such as the development of the famous sugar sheds and the James Watt dock area. Recently, the popular television drama “Waterloo Road” relocated to Inverclyde. That can be part of how we promote the identity of Greenock and Inverclyde.
Members would not expect me to say anything else but, sadly, we are fearful that that progress is under threat because of the deep cuts to the URC. The cuts to Inverclyde’s regeneration funding have been serious and we are worried that they put a question mark over the continuation of the steady progress that has been made. How can we expect long-term results when a crucial 10-year project is to be abandoned halfway through? How can the URC make good on its commitment to those deprived communities when the Government cannot even make good on its commitment to the urban regeneration companies? How do we look forward and commit to a new strategy, which needs to be long term, when our experience is that commitments are not being seen through?
My challenge to the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary is to make good on the commitment to regeneration and to back a wider manifesto for the regeneration of Inverclyde. Our ambitions have increased. I say clearly to the Scottish Government that it must keep its side of the bargain and allow Riverside Inverclyde to see through its long-term plans by making good on previous commitments and ending the uncertainty about future funding.
Mr McNeil, will you begin to wind up, please?
Right. Sorry, Presiding Officer.
The urban regeneration company is but one part of our wider manifesto. We have great ambition to see the renewables industry come to Inverclyde, and we want to see Inverclyde get a share of the £100 million fossil fuel levy to make that a reality. However, we must test the Government’s words and actions and look for continued support for a hard-pressed community.
15:25
I thank the cabinet secretary for holding this debate.
As a previous MSP for the Glasgow region and as the current MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, I, like my colleague Adam Ingram, have a lot of experience of regeneration issues. As I have said previously, I fully support the Government’s commitment and the aim to put regeneration at the top of the agenda.
I do not dispute that Duncan McNeil spoke from the heart or the sincerity with which his speech was delivered. He is absolutely right about the neglect and lack of ambition that there have been. We have spoken about them before. That neglect and lack of ambition have been visited on communities for generations, but he must be aware that there were Labour Governments during those 40, 50 or 60 years—decades and generations. That happened not just in Scotland, but at Westminster. However, I appreciate Duncan McNeil’s sincerity.
I accept that there has been a failing for 30 or 50 years, although well-meaning attempts have been made, such as the bringing in of the sunrise industries, which failed. Those industries lifted up communities, but they were not sustainable. What we have now is a sustainable model that is being damaged and put in jeopardy by the current Administration. I hope that that attitude will change, and I am sure that it will. We might hear something about that later, in the minister’s response.
I thank the member for his intervention, but I remind him that this is not the end of the URCs. I think that the cabinet secretary mentioned that, and I am sure that he will have to something to say about it in his winding-up speech.
Obviously, it is not only Inverclyde that has suffered high levels of deprivation; many areas in Glasgow have suffered them, too. Despite the money that has been invested—we have already spoken about that—those communities still have the same problems. There have been generations of unemployed in those communities, and there is no hope. Things are getting better, but as Duncan McNeil said, there have been generations of unemployed people, which is a problem that we must consider.
I believe that the cabinet secretary and the other ministers in the Government are looking at innovative approaches. We cannot continue with the old ways in which money is spent in areas that are still deprived. That is why we need to consider innovative approaches, and I welcome those that the cabinet secretary outlined.
I do not want to make the debate very political, although, obviously, I raised a political issue, which Duncan McNeil acknowledged. However, I was pretty disheartened when I read the Labour Party’s amendment. As I said, the Labour Party has been in power in Glasgow and in other areas, but it has failed to successfully regenerate areas and communities, particularly in Glasgow. As even Alex Johnstone mentioned, we must work together to regenerate those areas. I would have thought that we would want to work together on the Government’s ambition for regeneration, but, unfortunately, Michael McMahon seemed to take the same downbeat and pessimistic tone. I am sorry to say that he was bereft of fresh ideas or clear direction. I will take an intervention from him if he wants to intervene.
There is no point in talking to the member.
I put it to the member that perhaps the Labour Party needs to be regenerated.
If members are not going to intervene, they should not shout across the chamber, please.
I sincerely hope that the Labour Party will work constructively with the Government and others to ensure that future generations of people are not treated in the same way that people were treated decades ago. We must consider regeneration optimistically, as we can regenerate areas. We all know where those areas are, and a real change would benefit their communities. They want change, and it is up to us as elected members to give that to them.
I want to touch on a couple of issues that are obviously important, particularly in the Glasgow area.
The Commonwealth games will be a real catalyst for regeneration, not only in Glasgow but across Scotland. I hope that the minister will say something in his closing speech about community benefit clauses, which are being inserted into public contracts to ensure that local communities benefit from them. I fully support that interesting and innovative approach, but I would like to see more meat on the bones in relation to how it will work in practice.
As the minister knows, because I have raised the issue on numerous occasions, I am particularly interested in the community empowerment bill. I agree with him that community empowerment must come from the bottom up, not the top down. I heard what Alex Johnstone said, and, yes, we all need to work together. However, if communities are not involved and engaged, regeneration will not work. For too long, things have been thrown at communities—such as the sunshine industries that Duncan McNeil mentioned—without anybody asking the people on the ground what they wanted and how they would get involved.
The community empowerment bill is one of the most important bills in this session of Parliament. I look forward to seeing more meat on the bones of the bill and to working with the Government and with local communities on it.
Tax increment financing provides a golden opportunity for cities. The Glasgow Kelvin constituency, which I represent, covers the city centre, the merchant city and the vibrant west end area of Glasgow. It could really benefit from that finance. Glasgow City Council is putting forward a business case—I think it is for £80 million—for such funding for the Buchanan quarter. I do not say this lightly, but there have been some concerns about that TIF scheme. I plead with the council to listen to those concerns. I also hope that they will have no adverse effect, regardless of what the council proposes to the Government, because we desperately need such finance to be put into city centres, as it will raise areas up.
Duncan McNeil mentioned Inverclyde docks; I would like something to be done about the waterfront area on the Clyde as well. We should bring such derelict areas back into use so that all the communities can use them and businesses can locate there. I would like that to be considered for a future TIF scheme, if not the one that Glasgow City Council is proposing now.
I am pleased to speak in the debate. Regeneration is at the heart of communities as well as being at the heart of business. It is also at the heart of cities, including Glasgow, which is obviously the greatest city in Scotland. I want to ensure that regeneration works. That is why I appeal to all parties to work together to ensure that we get decent regeneration and a decent Scotland for the people who matter—the people who live here.
15:33
I welcome the debate. The regeneration of our towns and communities is one of the key elements in the Government’s strategy for tackling the deep-seated inequalities that continue to blight our society and limit the opportunities for our citizens—indeed, whole families—to realise their potential.
I go further: I suggest that regeneration is possibly the single most important policy at our disposal if we are to make real inroads into improving the life chances of many of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged people by combating the vicious cycle of deprivation to which far too many individuals and families are consigned for reasons that are entirely outside their control.
Regeneration is about communities and neighbourhoods, whether in our cities, towns or smaller villages throughout rural Scotland. It is focused on improving the places where people live. It is about creating jobs, improving housing, tackling poverty and empowering those who have the skills and resources to make a difference. It is about transforming possibilities, raising aspirations and enhancing prospects.
If we are able to achieve that and to improve lives—that is the Government’s absolute aim—we will make a significant contribution to reducing the future demand, especially the failure demand, on our public services.
Regeneration is not only about economic development, although that is an essential element; it is also about delivering social justice and reducing the inequalities that fundamentally curtail the life chances of far too many of our citizens. That aspiration underpinned the regeneration discussion paper that the cabinet secretary published in February this year and it is increasingly being turned into reality by the policies that this Government is implementing.
As we have heard from the cabinet secretary this afternoon, the Scottish Government has invested more than £90 million in Scotland’s urban regeneration companies since 2007. More than 1,300 new jobs have been created as a result. Our substantially increased investment in skills, employment measures, housing, transport and infrastructure is playing a central role in delivering our regeneration strategy.
Of course, the sheer scale of the challenges, coupled with the current economic and financial climate, inevitably means that there is still much to do. Although there is no getting away from the reality that hard cash matters if we are successfully to deliver our regeneration strategy, let us not forget one of the key messages of the Christie commission: communities must be empowered to help themselves.
This Government is fully committed to releasing the potential of Scotland’s communities to do things for themselves. In addition to putting in resources, we have to ensure that communities have the leadership needed to drive forward the regeneration process and that all our public service agencies—public sector and third sector—are operating in an integrated manner and thinking creatively about solutions that might work in particular localities.
As a South Scotland MSP, I want to mention one very good example of regeneration in my region: the waterfront project in Stranraer. That programme stems from the forthcoming opening of Stena Line UK’s new operation at Old House Point, near Cairnryan, which will create the opportunity for real transformational change for Stranraer. A master plan is in place to guide the regeneration programme, central to which is ensuring that the waterfront and the existing town centre are developed as one distinctive and successful visitor destination. The basis of that is to develop Stranraer and Loch Ryan as a centre of excellence for marine leisure and green tourism, with opportunities for new business, retail and housing developments and enhanced public space for residents and visitors. All that builds on the inherent strengths of the south-west of Scotland.
Efforts to achieve that have already started. A Scottish Government-backed town centre regeneration fund project of £790,000 has transformed the town centre at Castle Square, which recently won the Saltire Society’s award for the use of art in public places—the design was by two local artists, Matt Baker and David Ralston. A new shore-block facility is being built to support an increase in sailing from the marina, supported by a joint European Union grant shared with Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Delivering such a transformational change in the current economic and financial climate will be a challenge, given the level of public and private sector investment required. Finding new and innovative ways to secure such investment is key. Although council capital borrowing capacity is one option to lever in EU and other grant support, I believe that there is a real opportunity for the Scottish Government to support rural regeneration through new public-private financial instruments such as tax increment financing. However, we also need to consider how asset-backed financial vehicles such as JESSICA could be used in rural areas such as the south-west of Scotland to help achieve the scale of investment required.
In the context of the Scottish economy, the value of a successful Stranraer regeneration programme cannot be underestimated, given the potential to position Stranraer not just as a major gateway to Scotland from Ireland but as a major gateway to Europe from Ireland.
I know that the fundamental objectives that underpin this Government’s regeneration strategy are shared across the chamber and I do not doubt for one second that colleagues from all political parties feel as strongly as we in the Scottish National Party do about tackling the profound inequalities of opportunity that characterise far too many communities in Scotland. I hope that this debate will provide an opportunity for us all to consider constructively how we might take this shared agenda forward to the benefit of those whom we all seek to help.
15:39
The unemployment statistics that were announced this morning are a stark reminder of the need for a long-term strategic vision for the regeneration of the most disadvantaged communities and towns in Scotland.
Unemployment has risen by 5,000 in the past three months, and Scotland’s unemployment rate now stands at 8 per cent. One in five 18 to 24-year-olds is unemployed—a total of 84,000 young people across the country—and the number of people in employment has fallen by 28,000 in the last quarter.
In my West Scotland region, the number of people claiming jobseekers allowance has soared to 20,718, a change over the past year of 1,956. The constituency of Cunninghame South saw a 0.7 per cent increase in claimant count to 2,832, while the figures for Dumbarton and Paisley have both risen by more than 0.5 per cent in the past year. That all underlines the absolute importance of regeneration in Scotland and, in particular, my West Scotland region.
As other members have pointed out, there are many communities in need of regeneration, but I will focus particularly on Clydebank and the regeneration company Clydebank Re-built in my West Scotland region.
Clydebank Re-built was formed in 2002 to drive the economic, social and physical regeneration of the town. Its two founders are West Dunbartonshire Council and Scottish Enterprise, and it receives financial support from the council as well as from the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise.
Much has been achieved to date, including major developments at Queens Quay—the former site of John Brown’s shipyards—at John Knox Street, and at the prestigious 4-acre riverside site in the Clyde Gate area next to the national health service Golden Jubilee hospital. Improvements have also been made to the public realm in the town centre, and riverside walkways by the Clyde have been created.
This year saw the completion of the improvements to the canal south bank at the Clyde shopping centre, complementing earlier work on the north bank. Next year will, we hope, see the completion of the Clydebank town hall, which will feature a major upgrade of the facilities for conferences and performances, a civic space with break-out areas, a small cafe, a new wedding chapel, a larger museum and a new gallery and garden.
Looking down, above all of that, is the Titan crane—a reminder of Clydebank’s industrial past that is being used in a modern way for a number of activities including abseiling. Restored more than four years ago, it has already attracted 35,000 visitors. The new education and visitor centre that was opened in May this year will greatly assist schools and the wider community in learning about the area’s history.
Clydebank Re-built is a success story so far, but there are still chapters to be written. As Eleanor McAllister OBE, managing director of Clydebank Re-built, stated in the 2010-11 annual report,
“We are less than mid-way through our 20-year regeneration programme for Clydebank. There is still much to do.”
She also noted:
“Jobs are critical for the town. We have worked closely with local business to help sustain and expand their activity in our new business pavilions, the successful JKS workshops (which have achieved almost 100% occupancy). Our projects have generated directly almost 300 jobs in the town.”
As my colleagues Duncan McNeil and Michael McMahon have already mentioned, the ring-fenced budgets for all urban regeneration companies other than Clyde Gateway run only until 2012-13. After that, Riverside Inverclyde, Irvine Bay and Clydebank Re-built will all have to bid for funding as part of a wider regeneration strategy. They no longer have guaranteed funding beyond 2012-13 even though they were originally guaranteed 10 years of funding. There is now a very real concern that they will not be able to function in the way they are used to.
Clydebank Re-built wants to build more workshops that will allow more training and work opportunities for local people. House building on the waterfront is still an absolute priority, and there are many other projects that need to be done. We should give the company the certainty of funding that it needs.
Today’s figures show that 2,190 people claim jobseekers allowance in Clydebank and Milngavie. Taking the wind out of the sails of Clydebank Re-built by forcing it to compete for funding after 2012-13 threatens to make that grave statistic even worse and to bring to a halt the significant advances seen in Clydebank as a direct result of Clydebank Re-built.
There is also a brand-new college in Clydebank. It is doing important work but it, too, needs to receive continued support to create opportunities for young people in the area and not to be affected by the cuts that we are seeing from the Scottish Government. We have seen excellent results in a relatively short space of time in Clydebank, but long-term plans with the potential to provide genuine and lasting benefits to the people of the town and the area are at risk of falling off the radar.
The motion states:
“it is imperative that there is a strategic vision for the regeneration of the most disadvantaged communities across Scotland”.
I welcome that statement and agree with it, but that needs long-term focus. Going back on a commitment to guarantee urban regeneration companies 10 years of funding is an example of short-term thinking and strikes me as counterproductive.
We have heard a lot about cities from the Scottish Government and we have a minister for cities strategy. Although I do not disagree that cities are important to the national economy, we must not forget the real and pressing issues that are faced by our towns, particularly in the west of Scotland. I hope that the Government will offer the reassurance of action and money that those towns and communities need.
15:45
I, too, welcome the debate. Neil Bibby has mentioned many of the challenges that we face at the moment. I would like to live in an independent Scotland, but we are not there yet and I must work with the situation that we are in. Nevertheless, I am ambitious about how we can make things happen in our local communities, and the administration in Renfrewshire has shown how ambitious and confident we can be in going out into the greater world to promote ourselves.
I may not have mentioned it before, but I am from Paisley. I am a proud Paisley buddie and I am ambitious for the town, as are most people who are from towns such as Paisley—they are ambitious to see us build something for the future. A problem arises if we do not give people ambition and ideas for the future, showing them where we can go; negativity develops and they start to turn in on themselves. Luckily, over the past five years, we have shown that things can get better for Paisley if we have a can-do attitude.
I am a great believer in community-led regeneration. In fact, the Renfrewshire administration reinstated the local area committees with a budget of grant money from the general fund and some money from the towns fund. Through those cross-party groups, people were able to decide what they wanted themselves. I was the chair of a committee in Paisley south and said at the very first meeting, “Right. Let’s get out there and change our local community.” The local community thought that that was hyperbole from the big man again, but, with the limited funds that the group had, we made a difference.
For example, we got £160,000 of external funding and invested £20,000 ourselves in state-of-the-art tennis courts in Brodie park. It is an incredible thing, in this day and age, to have state-of-the-art municipal tennis courts that are free for all and that everybody can use. Now, 40 young people arrive at those courts every night of the week to learn to play tennis. It helped that, when we eventually made contact with Andy Murray’s mother, she held a gun to the head of Tennis Scotland—metaphorically speaking—and told it to give us the money. There is no point in having the elite of the sport at Braehead arena if local people are not allowed to play. If that is not the work of a strong community, I do not know what is.
I agree with the cabinet secretary that, over the years, community planning and work with local businesses, the community and public sector partners have been extremely important. That is what my colleague Derek Mackay did as the chair of the Paisley vision board. There were many difficult situations in Paisley town centre, and Mr Mackay led businesses and the local community—
Hear, hear.
—even if he says so himself. Instead of worrying about how to fill the empty shops, we decided to market them ourselves and do something about it. We started a “Paisley is ...” campaign. There was also what Derek Mackay called the holy trinity in Paisley, involving regeneration of the old Arnott’s site, the Littlewoods site—sorry for the advertising, Presiding Officer, but it is how we know them locally—and the council’s old north building. All three of those projects are now moving forward, but they had not moved forward before my colleague took control as leader of the council—obviously helped by his best man and friend on the council and now on the back benches.
We also invested in social housing—there has been talk of that today. There is a Scottish housing quality standard to meet by 2015 and the previous Labour administration said that it was privatise the housing stock or nothing, but we achieved the standard. It took three or four attempts to achieve it, but we got there in the end through the biggest investment in housing in Renfrewshire since the second world war.
I want to say one thing about the tax increment financing scheme. The cabinet secretary and I have known each other for many years. Renfrewshire Council made a bid to the scheme for the Glasgow airport economic investment zone. We are not taking the huff, but we will keep on at the cabinet secretary to have a look at the proposal, because it is a way of ensuring that we get the necessary infrastructure in an area where lack of infrastructure has been identified as a major constraint. It would give us a chance to create 3,300 jobs over 25 years through investment of £17 million. That is quite a good deal, even if I say so myself, so perhaps the cabinet secretary could consider it.
I want to talk about one of our local further education colleges, Reid Kerr College, whose principal, Audrey Cumberford, has invested in a state-of-the-art institute of construction and engineering. Some of her colleagues think that that is quite a strange thing to do in these difficult times. The college has spent £4 million ensuring that it has increased space for training in motor vehicles, electrical work and the fast-developing area of renewable energy. It is training people such as electricians so that they can get involved in the renewables side of things, which is important. It is a college that believes in investing in the future.
I am running out of time. I would like the cabinet secretary to consider having an economic zone or area in Paisley town centre, because that is definitely something that we need. That would help us to hold events such as the one that Renfrewshire Council and Paisley vision board held recently, when 37,500 people partied in Paisley town centre as they watched the Christmas lights being switched on. Incidentally, takings for restaurants and pubs in the area were up 55 per cent, which shows that people spent their money.
Despite Tesco’s breaking new ground in Wallneuk in the new year and the £9 million investment in Gilmour Street station, I would still like the cabinet secretary to fund some of the things that I have asked for. I have given local examples from Paisley and Renfrew, but I have no doubt that other members could identify similar initiatives from their areas. It is important that I am ambitious for the future of my town and my community. That is my job, which is why I have used my time as I have.
15:52
We have heard a lot about regeneration strategies and about the urban regeneration companies, which I intend to address later in my speech.
Given that we are in the midst of a real-terms reduction in capital funding from Westminster of 36.7 per cent between 2010 and 2015, the current funding strategies need to be examined, and I await with great interest the cabinet secretary’s announcement about the new regeneration strategy.
Just for clarity, the budget of the Inverclyde regeneration company Riverside Inverclyde is down by 57 per cent, whereas the Scottish Government’s overall capital budget is down by 25 per cent. Those are the figures for 2011-12. The proposed budget for Riverside Inverclyde for 2012-13 is down by 37 per cent, whereas the Scottish Government’s overall capital budget is down by only 4.9 per cent. Are there any conceivable circumstances in which the member can justify that cut to the URC?
I will come on to that later in my speech.
As I said, major cuts have been made to the Scottish Government’s budget. The debate highlights the limitations on the Scottish Government’s ability to borrow and on its financial powers and shows that the Parliament needs to be a normal independent Parliament if it is to be able to deal with the cuts that sometimes come this way.
Regeneration takes many forms, as we all know, and we should recognise—whether we are talking about funding the URCs, building new homes, building and refurbishing schools, refreshing our town centres or building new health and other facilities—that it is not defined by any one thing.
Two weeks ago, I was surprised to hear the Scottish Government’s announcement that it would cease Riverside Inverclyde’s funding at the end of the next financial year and reduce its funding allocation by £1.5 million to £2.5 million. I raised the matter with the cabinet secretary at the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, and I met him the very next day. He gave me an assurance that even with the new regeneration strategy, there will still be Government funds available for which RI can bid.
Being given that assurance is better than being told that there will be nothing left at all, and nothing available.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I have taken an intervention, and you are going to listen to what I have to say. [Interruption.] I have already taken an intervention—you have taken up enough of my time.
Yesterday, a meeting of Inverclyde Council’s regeneration committee took place. There were a few interesting points of note in the meeting papers.
Paragraph 2.5 of one of the papers states:
“Members will recall that CoSLA negotiated the transfer of local regeneration/economic development functions and the Business Gateway from Scottish Enterprise (SE) in 2008. As part of that deal, CoSLA secured an ongoing commitment in SE’s budget to at least £12.5 million annually for Urban Regeneration Companies (URCs) throughout two Spending Review periods”.
I found that to be of great interest, as I spoke to somebody in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and they informed me that that is not true: the commitment was for one spending round and not two. Either I have been informed incorrectly, or the papers that Inverclyde Council has published are factually incorrect. As a result, I have written to COSLA officially to establish the situation.
The second point of note concerns the financial amounts that have already been provided to Riverside Inverclyde for its work. Between 2006 and the current financial year, the Scottish Government provided £25.3 million, with £2.5 million guaranteed for next year; Scottish Enterprise provided £13.9 million; and Inverclyde Council provided £13.1 million, with £4.7 million earmarked for the next two years. That is a massive £52.3 million already spent in Inverclyde solely through Riverside Inverclyde since 2006.
In the Greenock Telegraph of 3 November, Duncan McNeil is quoted as saying:
“Riverside Inverclyde has only just begun its mission to attract jobs and business to the area, and it appears the Scottish Government is pulling the rug from under their feet.”
If Mr McNeil—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will go on with my point first.
If Mr McNeil actually believes that comment—and I dare say that he does—it just goes to show the state in which decades of Labour misrule in Inverclyde have left our community.
Added to that were the lost years in which the Tories tried to close down shipyards on the Clyde, including in Inverclyde. Thankfully, they failed in their mission to totally deindustrialise the Clyde.
The announcement two weeks ago that Ferguson shipbuilders in Port Glasgow—the town in which I grew up—will build the world’s first two hybrid ferries for CMAL, safeguarding 75 jobs and creating up to 100 more, including up to 20 new apprenticeships, was fantastic news. I told the cabinet secretary that it was excellent news that will be warmly welcomed in Inverclyde.
That order amounts to £20 million, which is funded by the Scottish Government. The context of the comparison is stark: £20 million guarantees those shipbuilding jobs at Ferguson, and yet according to Duncan McNeil, £52.3 million has not provided any jobs as the mission has only just started.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have placed on record many times in the Parliament my support for Riverside Inverclyde—I make no bones about that, and I will continue to support it. Riverside Inverclyde has done a very good job despite the state that Inverclyde was in when it came into being.
You are nothing but a patsy.
Mr McNeil is shouting and bawling from a sedentary position, but decades of the dead hand of Labour misrule are obvious and apparent in Inverclyde. Mr McNeil needs to acknowledge that.
The £52 million that has so far been spent has improved parts of Inverclyde and made them more attractive for future private investment. As I said, I will continue to champion Riverside Inverclyde and the regeneration.
As part of the regeneration, this Government has invested £99 million in social housing; £18 million in the fairer Scotland fund; and £2.2 million for the town centre regeneration fund. It has also invested £5.5 million, which is half of the money for the new additional needs school to be built in Port Glasgow, and half the cost of the new Wellpark centre, which deals with addictions. For those latter two projects, the Government was lobbied hard by the SNP council in Inverclyde. Under the SNP Government, 817 small businesses in Inverclyde have received the small business bonus. There are many more examples of why this Government has done a good job.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels, as there are still many more challenges ahead. I know that. Mr McNeil is sitting there laughing, but I do not think that the decades of Labour misrule in Inverclyde are a laughing matter. He knows that, and he has to admit to it—
You are a patsy.
Mr McNeil, could you stop shouting across the chamber, please?
Inverclyde has made great leaps forward in the past four years under the SNP, but the challenges remain. It is vital that we build on the progress that has been made and ensure that Inverclyde continues to develop and prosper.
Mr McMillan, could you finish your speech now, please? You are over time.
Okay. Thank you.
16:00
There are many aspects to regeneration. Many factors have been mentioned this afternoon and I am sure that others will be mentioned. Members have talked about job creation, youth unemployment, housing and colleges. We face many challenges at a time when the Scottish budget is being cut severely, but while accepting those challenges, we must not forget the past and current successes.
I will concentrate on my constituency. Most people would accept that the east end of Glasgow has particular challenges, but we have seen some significant progress. The first area that I will touch on is transport. The M74 was completed on time and on budget and it is estimated that there is potential for 20,000 jobs to be brought to the wider area because of that motorway. Being built at the moment and linked in with the M74 is the east end regeneration route, which is under construction just yards from my constituency office. That will link up more of the east end with the wider motorway network. Both Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government deserve to be congratulated on the progress that has been made on those roads.
Public transport, too, is being boosted in my area, with the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line giving new links. It is worth saying that many of the transport projects benefit much wider areas than just the areas in which they are built. The M74 benefits Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire and many other areas, and similarly, the railway is of great benefit to the east end of Glasgow. As I travel, I see students who are now able to attend a wider variety of courses because of that railway line. Dalmarnock station is receiving a £10 million upgrade with funding from the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, Clyde Gateway URC, Strathclyde partnership for transport and European money.
One reason why a number of those things are happening in the east end of Glasgow is to give better access to the Commonwealth games site, which brings me to my second topic. The fact that the Commonwealth games are coming to Scotland is a tremendous success for Scotland. We talk about the legacy of the games and what it will mean. It means different things to different people. For example, we hope that it will mean that folk exercise more and their health improves. From my point of view, the main legacy will be the physical legacy of the buildings that will continue to exist after the games. The village and four of the main venues will be in Glasgow Shettleston. That will create the opportunity for local people to watch sport, but also the opportunity for them to take part and use the facilities afterwards.
Does the member agree with the Labour councillors in Inverclyde who said yesterday that money should be diverted away from the Commonwealth games to go elsewhere?
That strikes me as a slightly bizarre suggestion. The Commonwealth games will benefit the whole of Scotland and raise our profile in the world. I would think that one of the areas that Inverclyde should be moving forward on is tourism. It is doing that, as far as I am aware. A boost to Scottish tourism should therefore be a boost to Inverclyde.
One advantage of the Commonwealth games, like the Olympics, is that lesser-known sports get more of a profile. One of those is hockey. I am grateful to Scottish Hockey for inviting me to be its guest at the recent dinner to mark 1,000 days until the Commonwealth games. Not only will the top hockey pitches in Scotland come to the east end of Glasgow, but Scottish Hockey will move its headquarters to Glasgow Green. That is an example of a long-term commitment that will give the area a real boost. It is real regeneration as far as I am concerned.
I should also mention the athletes village. The houses there will not have kitchens because the athletes will not need to cook, but after the games are over, kitchens will be fitted and a considerable number of new houses will be made available. There will be 300 social rented houses and a 120-bed care home that will be run by the council, which will allow older people to stay in the area, in the one building, as their situation changes. There will also be a considerable number of houses for sale.
There will also be jobs in building the facilities and running them later on; 620 jobs, including 84 apprenticeships, will be linked to the village. I understand that this week Nicola Sturgeon visited CCG (Scotland) Ltd, which is making timber frames for the housing. One of the employees there, Paul Doherty, said:
“After a lengthy period without work, I was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to be taken on at the CCG off-site manufacturing plant back in August 2010. I’m not exaggerating when I say that my life has been transformed as a result. I’m very proud to be living proof that Clyde Gateway really is making a difference across our communities.”
That leads me on to my third and final topic, Clyde Gateway. I declare an interest in that I have been trying, through Clyde Gateway, to employ a young person who would not normally be getting a job, so I have a link with it in that way.
Clyde Gateway has been doing some tremendous things. Transport has been mentioned already, and Clyde Gateway’s work spans Rutherglen and South Lanarkshire as well as Glasgow, preparing derelict and contaminated land for business use, which has been a tremendous success.
The M74 has opened up many new sites that can be used for businesses. Glasgow community and safety services is moving to Bridgeton to the new Eastgate building, which will be home to about 500 staff. I hope, too, that the police offices in Pitt Street might be able to move to Dalmarnock, where a site is ready for them. I understand that such a move would immediately save on running costs and that such a building would be needed both by Strathclyde Police and by the new national police force, so that decision should not be too much of a factor.
On a more general point, we cannot stress enough the importance of house building. Just yesterday I was at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations finance conference in Crieff, at which people emphasised the important impact that house building has on the economy and on health, saving fuel and education. While I am enthusiastic about transport projects, I have to say that if money is tight we should emphasise housing.
We face a challenging financial climate, as the motion states, but let us not downplay what has been achieved and is being achieved by this Government.
16:07
Presiding Officer, thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate.
As a South Scotland list member, I acknowledge the contribution to the debate of my colleague across the chamber, Aileen McLeod, and I support much of what she said in her speech. I thank her for acknowledging that all of us in the chamber are committed to regeneration and that it is in all our interests that Scotland should be regenerated and our communities given every opportunity to be all that they can be. At the same time, I ask Sandra White to accept that Michael McMahon’s amendment to the motion is not necessarily negative, as she would see it. It is the duty of the Opposition to point out what we see as shortcomings in the way forward that the cabinet secretary has presented.
Creating new life from what was there before is the key to regeneration. It is about revitalising communities and giving people in them the opportunity to be part of 21st century Scotland. This debate should be about delivering life back to the communities that need it most. I was pleased that the cabinet secretary said that in his speech.
Regeneration is not an easy topic. Certainly, in all my working life, regeneration has been a fact of Government policy and a focus of local authority effort. My first involvement in this area was with a regeneration initiative from Strathclyde region. At that time in the 1970s, it was called generating change. I have no doubt that politicians of that generation were like-minded in their commitment to do their best for the people whom they served. However, it is not as easy as just adding up the numbers and putting together initiatives.
In my experience of regeneration, there are four key elements. The first key element is our people, but there are difficulties that need to be faced full on and delivered on. Currently, homelessness figures are up by 25 per cent, with 36,440 households identified as homeless in our communities. Although that is a tragedy for those families, it also offers the opportunity of regeneration. We have affordable homes to build to give those families the opportunity to participate and be part of what we would see as a regeneration process.
As was said earlier, unemployment is up to 8 per cent. One in five young people are unemployed. One in four young men are unemployed. The regeneration of areas such as Ayr, Kilmarnock, Stranraer and rural communities is important. We need to learn the lessons that were delivered at Dalmarnock and Ravenscraig. The old idiom suggests that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Preventative spending seems to have won out, and there is a consensus. Job creation, particularly for young people, can support the regeneration of areas and increase economic activity and it is good for the economy. It will also limit the decline of an area, minimising the need for drastic regeneration again in the future. Therefore, in the current financial climate, with 215,000 unemployed and a need for more skills in our workforce, there is clear evidence of the negative and pervasive effect of significant youth unemployment. Our Government needs to have a strategy for job creation.
Does the member acknowledge that the Government’s opportunities for all programme, which benefits 16 to 19-year-olds, as well as the commitment to 25,000 apprenticeships every year, will go some way to tackling the issue?
That is a good point. The problem is that the latest figures for apprenticeships for 2010-11 reveal that 12,827 apprenticeship starts are currently at college and the information from building firms that I deal with in the south of Scotland—and from the Confederation of British Industry—indicates that the likelihood of delivering on those 25,000 places is pie in the sky. There is a challenge for the Government to deliver on its target and to be seen to be doing so. If it is delivered, I will applaud that fact, but there is a question mark that needs to be faced, and it is a question mark that young people worry about daily. I am sure that there is no member in this chamber who has not had young people approach them and share their worries about their future and their families’ futures.
Last month, while speaking of the impact of the budget constraints, the principal of Borders College told the Education and Culture Committee:
“We will have to reduce places, lose staff and turn away even more students than we already turn away.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 4 October 2011; c 265.]
That is an uncomfortable statement, and it is not one that anyone in this chamber wants to hear. However, as an Opposition, we need the Government to answer that point, and to do so with confidence and with facts.
The second key issue in regeneration is capital. Entrepreneurs, banks, local authorities and the Scottish Government must work together to release investment. UK cuts are regularly referred to in this chamber, but we need to accept that we are talking about world cuts. The priorities for the Scottish budget are set by ministers in this Parliament, and they need to be answerable for where they decide to invest the funds.
The member says that the cuts are world cuts, but many other countries are investing in capital projects to put their people back to work and ensure that the worst excesses of the cuts are not felt. Unfortunately, we do not have the levers of power in this Parliament to do all those things. Does the member agree that one of the first things that might be considered is a rethink of the increase in the Public Works Loan Board interest rate?
The first thing that we should do is to ensure that we use to best effect all the powers that we already have and demonstrate the efficiency of our policies.
Another element in terms of delivery is ideas—the vision, the ambition, the leadership by the Government and the ownership of the problems that lie behind the current situation. The final element concerns land and projects. The Government must find the means to reduce the time lag in delivering projects, developing projects and ensuring that people can enjoy the projects that we plan. I offer the Gartcosh project as an example. It is nearly 10 years old and is still to be occupied, not only as a facility for public use but, more important, as a development opportunity for North Lanarkshire. I encourage the Government to look to similar projects in the south of Scotland and to give rural communities the opportunity to be part of 21st century Scotland.
I would be grateful if you could close now.
I am obliged, Presiding Officer. I am complete.
16:15
The process of regenerating some of Scotland’s most deprived areas is of huge importance to the Scottish Government and, as we have heard in this afternoon’s debate, to all members. Regeneration is, of course, essential on a number of levels and will undoubtedly help to create a Scotland that is more vibrant, equal and sustainable while simultaneously supporting and creating jobs and building communities in which people are proud to live.
Regeneration projects are rarely simple and are not always successful, and it is therefore vital that they are carefully planned and well financed, that they deliver value for money, that they are supported by a range of organisations and that they focus on securing specific positive outcomes. As Irvine Bay Regeneration Company operates partly within my constituency, I am particularly interested in its activities and I am pleased that we have taken the time to discuss the important matter of regeneration in the Parliament.
Sadly, through decades of neglect by successive Labour and Conservative UK Governments, swathes of Scotland have been allowed to deteriorate and decline to a sorry condition. Many areas suffer from high levels of unemployment, poor health, high levels of crime and a lack of suitable housing and local facilities. I am confident that the policies of this Government and the commitment to regeneration projects will help to turn such areas around, creating opportunities and prosperity for the people who live here.
Regeneration cannot be done on the cheap and at a time when Westminster has cut Scotland’s capital budget by 36.7 per cent over three years, it is essential to secure investment from all potential sources and to secure as much value as possible from the finances available. The role of the Scottish Futures Trust, established by this Government in the previous session, has been invaluable in that, providing expertise in negotiating development contracts, securing lower rates of interest on finance and ensuring more effective planning and delivery of projects than was the case under our profligate and wasteful Labour predecessors, who have left us with the legacy of private finance initiatives.
The benefits already delivered by the Scottish Futures Trust have been quite extraordinary. On 1 September 2010, it was announced that according to independently audited figures it had delivered £111 million of efficiencies for a £3.5 million investment, avoiding costs and developing additional investment on future infrastructure in Scotland during the 2009-10 financial year. The expertise that the Scottish Futures Trust offers will be vital to regeneration projects as it pursues a £9 billion portfolio of projects, including developing a £2.5 billion programme of revenue-financed investment in transport, health and education projects to be funded through the non-profit-distributing model. It continues to manage the £1.25 billion schools for the future programme—which will help to deliver a new Garnock academy in my constituency—£400 million to £500 million of which will be funded through the NPD model. It is also vital to deliver homes for intermediate rent under the first phase of the national housing trust initiative.
Irvine Bay Regeneration Company is working to revitalise five towns and their environs in North Ayrshire. I have mentioned some of its achievements in a previous debate, but for the future plans are in place to build a hotel, create a new golf course, refresh and develop town centres, clean up old industrial sites, construct quayside office space, extend Ardrossan marina and set up light engineering units. There are many other innovative projects to rejuvenate the communities that the company serves. All that excellent work is taking place over and above Scottish Government and local authority plans to build schools and houses and improve the local transport network.
Only a week ago, I attended a meeting with Irvine Bay chief executive, Patrick Wiggins, the leader of North Ayrshire Council, David O’Neill, and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, Alex Neil, to discuss the future of Irvine Bay. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary was able to pledge that the Scottish Government will continue to work in partnership with North Ayrshire Council and Irvine Bay Regeneration Company in the medium to long term. Alex Neil asked Irvine Bay to produce a business plan for the next four to five years, focusing on key projects and developments, and made it clear that he would provide secure core funding for the regeneration company over that period. I am aware that both North Ayrshire Council and Irvine Bay Regeneration Company were pleased with the cabinet secretary’s guarantee. Councillor O’Neill said:
“We had a very positive meeting and are delighted that the Scottish Government has committed to continued support of regeneration in Irvine Bay.
We are happy that they recognise our efforts to breathe much-needed new life into the area.
This outcome proves how effective local partnership working can be, with representatives from across the political spectrum and all tiers of government pulling together for the good of North Ayrshire and its people.”
Meanwhile Patrick Wiggins, Irvine Bay’s chief executive, said:
“We are grateful to the Scottish Government for their continued support. The fact that cabinet secretary Alex Neil has made a number of visits to view the work being done by Irvine Bay has undoubtedly helped him gain a first-hand view of the value of the work that is being carried out.”
In terms of further investment in regeneration, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, has attempted to counteract Westminster cuts by moving £200 million each year from Scottish resource budgets to fund new capital projects in Scotland.
We heard from Michael McMahon, who is not with us at the moment, that regeneration is a priority for Labour. However, everything appears to be a priority for Labour if we listen to the funding demands in every area, from colleges to justice to the NHS, from its front-bench representatives. They have completely failed to square the circle in terms of the budget and so lack credibility. Sadly, there appears to be little thinking in the Labour front-bench ranks, although I am glad to hear in Graeme Pearson’s speech that there is certainly some on the back benches. It is unfortunate that there is no joined-up thinking on Labour’s front bench.
As for Alex Johnstone, who I note has been listening intently—yes, I am about to talk about him—I was quite surprised by his “rob the poor to feed the rich” speech, which I am sure that he will add to if he winds up.
The Scottish Government is fully committed to regeneration and I am fully confident that, even during these difficult times, when this Parliament’s budget has been cut so dramatically by Westminster, we can still bring positive and meaningful change to some of Scotland’s most deprived communities. I look forward to the publication of the new strategy.
Housing was mentioned as being very important and we should remember that, in North Ayrshire alone, the Scottish Government, in partnership with North Ayrshire Council, will build 182 council houses in the next financial year. We should remember that between 2003 and 2007 Labour built six council houses in the whole of Scotland, all of which were in Shetland—thanks, no doubt, to the hard work and perseverance of Tavish Scott.
This Government has invested more than £216 million directly in regeneration since 2007 and plans for next year will include £25 million a year for capital, to be discussed with COSLA, and £7.9 million for resources. Vacant and derelict land—I have talked about that for more than a decade—will receive £40 million. I am delighted at the Scottish Government’s approach and I believe that we will make significant progress in regenerating our communities in the months and years ahead.
16:22
As has been recognised across the chamber, the regeneration of our communities is one of the most important aspects of any programme for government. In my view, being the minister responsible for the national regeneration strategy must be one of the most exciting jobs in Government and I am sure the chamber will recognise and welcome Alex Neil’s determination to deliver a national regeneration strategy fit for a 21st century Scotland.
Clearly, regeneration is about more than bricks and mortar; it is an opportunity for local and national Government to work together with partner agencies, such as housing associations, schools, colleges, community councils and health boards. It is also an opportunity to bring about growth in the local and national economy by boosting investment and creating jobs, all to make life better for our constituents.
One of the most challenging issues that regeneration can address is the social problems that we have here in Scotland—drug and alcohol abuse, crime, antisocial behaviour, poor educational attainment, unemployment, health inequalities and low aspiration. All those things have been touched on by previous speakers, but it is important that we reiterate the high correlations that are found between living in deprived areas and a range of those negative outcomes. Although a person’s community cannot be claimed to solely determine life outcomes, it clearly plays an important role in shaping them. Just look at the statistics—in justice, 62 per cent of prisoners previously lived in 25 per cent of Scotland’s most deprived areas. In health, between 2001 and 2004, the rate of hospital admissions related to alcohol misuse per 100,000 of the population was just over three times higher in the most deprived areas than in less deprived areas. In education, the exclusion rate in the 10 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland is 91 per 1,000 pupils, compared with 12 per 1,000 pupils in other areas of Scotland.
As a Glasgow MSP, I recognise those statistics. We need to do what we can to change that for the better. Sustainable regeneration of our communities is hugely important, and investment in the new generation of community organisations that will develop community cohesion and resilience is vital, especially in these tough economic times. However, it is about not just providing financial support but allowing genuine community ownership of projects that benefit our communities.
I was interested to read the SCVO briefing for the debate, which highlights the importance of community ownership of energy projects. Members will be aware—they are probably sick of me talking about it—of the on-going dispute with Glasgow City Council about allowing the Castlemilk and Carmunnock Community Wind Farm Trust to develop a community-owned renewable energy project, the profits of which would go into the community to combat many of the social issues that have been highlighted in the debate.
The project would contribute to single outcome agreements set by the Scottish Government and COSLA, make life better for local residents and ease the burden on council tax payers, yet the council refuses to grant a lease for the land unless the trust surrenders the management of the project and the profits, which were meant to benefit the community, to the city chambers. While there is hope that the Government’s planned community empowerment bill will address some of those issues, I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary would tell me when he sums up what is in the regeneration strategy to combat the obstructiveness of councils such as Glasgow on issues such as that.
The debate has touched on housing a couple of times. I would like to talk about two housing associations, one of which is slightly bigger than the other. The first one is Glasgow Housing Association. I declare an interest, in that I am still on the board of the GHA. When the GHA came into being it was not universally greeted. It has had six or seven years of a bumpy ride, and it is only over the past two or three years that it has really pulled itself together and done the job that it was meant to do.
Recently, the GHA has played a big part in the regeneration of the city of Glasgow. It has invested more than £1.1 billion in existing stock transfer, £150 million of which has been ploughed into new housing construction, community facilities, additional environmental schemes and 59 new and improved play areas.
The report of an independent evaluation of the GHA’s investment programme concluded that
“given the ‘multiplier’ impact of capital investment on the wider economy, GHA’s £983 million capital expenditure is likely to have generated an additional £923 million in benefits to the UK (mainly the Scottish) economy.”
It goes on to say that £682 million of that would have remained in the Glasgow area. Those are encouraging figures, but there is more to it than that. Such initiatives play their part in the environment. For example, 90 per cent of demolition material from high rises has been recycled by the GHA. John Mason talked about the M74, much of which is made from those old buildings. The GHA should be congratulated on that.
While we all blame different people for the financial situation, we all accept that there are difficulties. It is not about throwing money at the difficulties—the money is not there to be thrown—but about using the money that we have wisely. That is one of the best things that the GHA has done. The Government has approved a bid for £1.1 million from its innovation and investment fund towards the cost of redeveloping a block of surplus multistorey flats at Ibroxholm Oval. From the point of view of cost and the environment, that is a good example of how we should be using what is there and the money that we have instead of always looking for fresh money and to build again.
The second housing association is much closer to home. I was delighted to see in the SCVO briefing that Cassiltoun Trust, which is based in my constituency in Castlemilk, was used as a model of success in how asset transfer and community ownership can drive urban regeneration. In a recent visit to the project, I was mightily impressed by Castlemilk Stables. I have known that area of Castlemilk for the best part of 50 years and it was a completely different place before Cassiltoun took it over. Back then, the houses could not have been given away and people could not even have been paid to move into them. Now, the waiting lists are enormous. The trust has done a magnificent job of regenerating the area and of ensuring that the community wants to be part of what is happening. It takes on local apprentices and is looking to open up a community-owned and run shop that will deliver groceries to those with mobility problems in the area. There are community facilities in the stables block.
The trust is not the only organisation that is regenerating the area, but it is a perfect example of what housing associations should be doing. Our job as policy makers is to ensure that the tools and mechanisms are in place so that such organisations can spend the money that they have. They know that they are facing difficult times and they accept that there is not as much money as there has been previously, but they have cut their cloth accordingly, they are using their money wisely and they are investing in their communities. That is what all organisations such as housing associations and others should be doing, and I applaud them for it.
I welcome the new regeneration strategy and commend the Government for bringing forward the consultation on developing the strategy.
16:30
This has been a wide-ranging and worthy debate. I am sure that we are all grateful to Stuart McMillan and Duncan McNeil for giving us some entertainment when our spirits were flagging an hour and a half into the debate.
I will touch on two issues that are of interest to my constituents in Mid Scotland and Fife and will then touch on some of the broader issues raised in the debate.
The first issue that I will address is town centre regeneration. I was interested to read Fife Council’s response to the Scottish Government’s regeneration discussion paper. Fife Council refers to the threat to town centres from
“the growing importance of the internet; the increasing dominance of supermarkets; the expansion of retail and business space permitted outwith town centres; a move to ‘leisure shopping’ by increasingly demanding consumers; increasing geographic mobility ... fewer purchasing trips being taken to larger centres with larger outlets; an increasing stock of vacant but unsuitable property for modern retail trading; rising costs.”
Does Mr Fraser agree that business improvement districts, which have been pushed forward by the Government, are immensely beneficial in ensuring that town centres do not suffer as badly as they otherwise would from the factors that he mentions?
BIDs have brought some benefits. One downside is that the businesses themselves are expected to contribute, so in a way it is a form of additional taxation.
The cabinet secretary said that the town centre regeneration fund was a £60 million fund that had provided assistance to 89 town centres. I am sure that it was due only to forgetfulness on his part—perhaps brought on by advancing years—that he did not mention that it was a Conservative initiative, which was inserted into a previous Scottish Government budget due to Conservative pressure. I am delighted that we have seen so many benefits for town centres across Scotland as a result of that excellent idea. Some of the challenges that Fife Council identifies in its paper are being addressed by the injection of those funds.
The minister will be familiar with the situation in Blairgowrie and Rattray, where funds to the sum of £1.5 million were obtained for town centre regeneration. He will know that the situation has not been without its local difficulties. The community and the regeneration company are working hard to find a way forward. I hope that he will be sympathetic to initiatives being brought forward by the community to utilise that money, as it would be a tragedy if, after so much work has gone into the bid, the funding was lost to the community due to misfortune rather than any lack of attention by those driving the bid.
The second point specific to my constituency that I want to raise is the future of Perth city centre. Of course, Perth is not yet a city, but we hope that it will be come the Queen’s diamond jubilee next year. The development control committee of the local authority decided today to demolish the city hall in Perth. It is a landmark building of some historic importance, which has been the venue for a great many civic events over the years and, indeed, a venue for many political conferences. In fact, I am sure that many members have attended conferences there. My colleague reminds me that Margaret Thatcher spoke there many times. Some will remember that it was the venue for Ted Heath’s famous declaration of Perth back in, I think—[Interruption.] I was going to say 1967, but I am being heckled and told that it was 1968. Nobody has made a film about him yet.
The city hall is a building of questionable architectural merit, which is perhaps overlarge for its site. Crucially, following the creation of the new concert hall in Perth, it had no viable future economic use, so the decision has been taken to knock it down. That has created the opportunity to establish a civic square in the centre of Perth—an objective that I support—and to improve the setting of St John’s kirk, the most important historic building in the centre of the city. On balance, that was the right decision, although a halfway house was proposed of retaining the front part of the city hall for another use and knocking down the back half. An interesting point about the proposal, which relates to the broader discussion on regeneration, was how controversial it was. It divided opinion throughout the city and further afield. That shows the challenges that we face when ambitious ideas for regeneration are proposed and we try to win public support for them.
I will touch on other issues to do with regeneration priorities that have been raised during the debate. The cabinet secretary talked about the need for community leadership and for the process to be bottom up and not top down. That is essential. Successful regeneration projects are those in which people at the grass roots come up with ideas and then seek funding from a variety of sources.
That leads me to my next point, which is about the need to involve the private and voluntary sectors as well as the public sector. As we all know, and as the Government has acknowledged, we live in difficult times as far as funding is concerned. We therefore need to bring in private sector funding where that can be achieved. A good example of that, about which members from the north-east will know more than I do, are the proposals to redevelop Union Terrace gardens in Aberdeen. I will not get into the controversy about whether that is a good idea, but it has been made possible by generous philanthropic support from Sir Ian Wood. Were it not for that support, we would not have that potential redevelopment. The point about a participatory approach from the public sector is well made in the briefing for the debate from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which points out that, too often, there is an adversarial relationship between the public and private sectors.
We must examine the planning system. The Public Audit Committee recently considered the Audit Scotland report “Modernising the planning system”, which presented a range of challenges for planning. One important fact that was pointed out was that, although income for planning departments is reducing because the number of planning applications has fallen as a result of the economic downturn, the cost of planning departments is still going up. That seems extraordinary, and there is clearly a mismatch. Of course people want a planning system that gives a fair balance, but it must be responsive and it must reach decisions more quickly than happens at present in many cases.
I am coming towards the end of my time but, if I may, Presiding Officer, I will make a couple of final points.
Quickly.
The first is about deprivation. Regeneration is not only about so-called deprived areas. As I said, many small towns have changed shopping patterns and so need support, but they are not what are traditionally seen as deprived areas.
On funding models, the cabinet secretary talked about JESSICA and TIF and other acronyms, but we already have a model whereby we can spend money now when there is a shortage of capital funds: the public-private partnership. However, the Scottish Government has an ideological opposition to PPP as a means of creating economic opportunity now and paying for it down the road.
We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s regeneration strategy in due course. In the meantime, I support the Government’s motion and the amendment in the name of Alex Johnstone.
16:38
The debate has been an interesting one on a subject that is of importance to us all. It has been useful to hear about colleagues’ experiences and priorities and to understand better the challenges that communities throughout the country face. As Michael McMahon said, the debate is a useful continuation of some of the themes that arose in last week’s debate on architecture and place making. I suspect that many of the issues that have been raised today, not least the stalled spaces agenda, will recur in the debate that we are to have on the cities strategy. I wonder whether it might be worth while having a longer debate, perhaps over a whole day—I am being optimistic—in which we have the opportunity to range over all those issues. It is difficult to cut one off from the other, and I wonder whether we should try to do so.
The cabinet secretary is right that there is no silver bullet. It is good that the Scottish Government is using the JESSICA fund in the way that he described. After all, that is what the money is for. However, if memory serves me correctly, the funding streams are in minimum quantities of £1 million. If a local community is to access and use money on that scale, it will need support to maximise the opportunity. I hope that the cabinet secretary will say something about that in his closing speech.
I have previously asked the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to clarify one or two points about enterprise areas. We have had enterprise zones and enterprise areas before, but what they were best at was encouraging work, employment and jobs from one area—sometimes an area of relatively low employment—into an area of even greater unemployment. I sincerely hope that that would not be the effect of any new initiative.
The cabinet secretary was right to say that we need a co-ordinated approach. For that reason, I am pleased that the Labour amendment has expanded the scope of the debate and focused some of it on our further education colleges. My constituency is currently in the unenviable position of having the highest claimant count in Scotland. In that context, our local colleges make a vital contribution to the life of our communities.
I will talk a little bit about the experience of North Glasgow College, which is the college that I know best. This year alone, it has reduced the number of its faculties from five to three, lost 30 full-time equivalent posts at a one-off cost of £568,000 and—most important of all—lost 500 years of staff experience. A price cannot be put on that experience, but we can consider the findings of the “Review of Scotland’s Colleges: Transforming Lives, Transforming Scotland: An Overview by the Review’s ‘Core Group’”, which estimated that, for every £1 that was spent on further education colleges, £3.20 accrued to the Scottish economy. The then education secretary, Ms Hyslop, described that figure as “conservative”.
North Glasgow College and others are surely exemplars of the initiatives that the minister seeks to achieve. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will think again about the punitive cuts in further education in the years ahead that it proposes. Those colleges are at the heart of our communities, and they are best able to work with local schools and employers to work out what skills are needed and to educate and train the very people whose hard work will get us out of the economic crisis. They also have an effect on our young people’s life chances and help them to break the cycle of deprivation that Aileen McLeod spoke about.
It is clear that housing continues to be an area of interest across the chamber. It was therefore disappointing to learn last week that the Scottish Government proposes to cut the transfer of management of development funding budget for Glasgow and Edinburgh. I have been told that Glasgow’s budget looks set to be reduced from an expected £174 million to around £114 million over the next three years.
The Labour Party has failed to say that, where the Government overspends in sectoral budgets, it should transfer money into areas with underspends, so let us try geography. I have heard a number of Labour members say that their areas are underfunded; indeed, it appears to me that Labour members say that throughout the country. Is there any area in Scotland that Patricia Ferguson thinks is overfunded from which we should transfer resources to Labour areas that are believed to be underfunded?
I am sorry to disabuse Mr Mackay, but I am not talking about things in the narrow way that he is; I am talking about the budget that Glasgow was led to believe it would have compared with the one that it now looks as though it will have. Perhaps he can tell me where that money has gone. I would be very interested in that.
The effect of the budget reductions—this is where they really matter—is to put at risk budgets that provide money for adaptations; work to achieve our homelessness targets next year; important reprovisioning projects; and, of course, the transformational regeneration areas, in which I have a particular interest. If Mr Mackay is seriously saying that those areas do not matter in Glasgow, Edinburgh or anywhere else, I would be most surprised. In closing, will the minister address Glasgow City Council’s genuine concerns and advise members as to whether he is still confident about achieving the homelessness targets?
I say to Kenny Gibson that we have heard peddled before the figure for the number of houses in local authority areas for which Labour and our Liberal Democrat colleagues were responsible. Actually, he is incorrect about that number. However, we must look at the wider picture, which indicates that, between local authorities and housing associations, over the period of the previous Labour Administrations, more than 31,000 new social rented houses were provided. The Scottish Parliament information centre will verify that fact, if Kenny Gibson does not believe me. He may want to denigrate the housing associations’ contribution, but I suspect that he does not, so perhaps he should think more carefully in future about what he says.
Will Patricia Ferguson give way?
No. I have already heard what Kenny Gibson has to say on the issue.
The minister also mentioned the town centre regeneration fund. I was delighted that Maryhill in my constituency received funding from that stream. Later this month, the Maryhill burgh halls will open, and the town centre regeneration money was part of a huge mosaic of funding for that project. I think that the minister has already visited the burgh halls or is about to, and I am sure that he will agree with me that they are a stunning example of what can be done with our heritage.
As I have said before, I was, of course, disappointed that the community-led bid from Possilpark, which is near Maryhill, was not as successful as the Maryhill bid. However, that is what happens.
Duncan McNeil and Neil Bibby gave us examples of the regeneration of the areas in which they are most interested. They are right to argue to secure their funding.
I say to George Adam that he must not talk Paisley down. That comment is slightly tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point to it. He clearly was not listening to Sandra White, who indicated in her speech that any criticism of what the Government intends is unacceptable. We must be able to make constructive criticism, and it was refreshing to hear a little bit of gentle criticism of the Government from George Adam.
I now do not have time to range over all the issues that I would have liked to cover. However, I will say that we will not be able to accept the Conservative amendment, which indicates that the Conservative Party thinks that
“regeneration spending should be targeted where it will bring most benefit to the wider community.”
The Labour Party believes that it should be targeted where it is most needed.
16:47
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on his award at the Scottish politician of the year dinner as the politician who has made the most impact on Scottish politics over the past year. Had he won the leadership and abolished the Scottish Conservative Party, he would have had an even greater impact of more benefit to the rest of us than perhaps anything else.
As I am fair, I should also put on record my congratulations to my colleague Nicola Sturgeon, who won the debater of the year award despite the stiff competition from me and my colleague Michael Russell.
Just for the record, I also say to Mr Fraser—
Entertaining as this is, the debate is on regeneration, minister.
I say to Mr Fraser, on his constituency interest, that I will meet Blairgowrie and Rattray Regeneration Company later this month. As he knows, we have done everything possible to assist the town centre regeneration project in the Blairgowrie and Rattray area. We will continue to work with BARRC and Perth and Kinross Council, because we are keen for that community to benefit as intended from the town centre regeneration fund. I will be happy if Mr Fraser includes that statement in the press release that, no doubt, he has already written.
I will also comment on Patricia Ferguson’s speech. It was interesting that she boasted that the total number of social houses built during the eight years of the previous Administration was 31,000. If we divide 31,000 by eight, we get an average figure of just below 4,000. I find it incredible that the Labour Party brags about having built an average of less than 4,000 social houses a year but complains because we are building 6,000 social houses a year for each of the next five years. With all due respect, I think that that is an indication of muddled thinking if ever there was one.
A number of issues have been raised and I will try as best I can in the 10 minutes that the Presiding Officer has awarded me to update members.
On the big picture, despite the cuts that are being imposed from Westminster on our capital budget, the Scottish Government, through various means—particularly through our imaginative and innovative programmes—will be spending or leveraging something of the order of £12 billion of capital spend over the three-year period that is covered by the comprehensive spending review. That includes £7.5 billion, which is the capital part of the allocation from Westminster, £2.5 billion from our NPD programme, about £1 billion from Network Rail’s regulatory asset base, and a range of other investments, including the housing investment that we announced six weeks ago. The housing investment budget is core to the regeneration of every one of the communities mentioned in this debate.
Within the space of a week, Mr Brown and I between us announced total investment of £460 million to build more than 4,300 new houses. The important point about that is that the Scottish Government’s share of that was £110 million, so we were leveraging £3 for every £1 spent. In these difficult times, using what Government money is available to leverage in additional resources from elsewhere, so that we can build the houses that we need, not just in the areas mentioned in the debate but the length and breadth of Scotland, has to be the right approach. We cannot judge or predict the success of any programme, let alone the housing programme, by the amount of Government money that goes in; we have to judge it by the total investment and the output that comes out. More than 4,300 houses, 74 per cent of which are for social rent and many more of which are for intermediate rent, represent a huge achievement by any standards. In that one announcement, we announced more new houses than the average house building programme total for the previous Executive in any one year.
I heard a number of speakers mention colleges. The role of education—college education, school education, pre-school education and university education—is essential to all our communities that are involved in regeneration. I, too, welcome the initiative that Glasgow City Council announced this week to facilitate better destinations and training opportunities around the Commonwealth games for graduates in Glasgow. That announcement is welcome and I hope that other local authorities follow that example.
The role of the college sector is important. For the record, it is worth pointing out that, between 2007 and the end of the spending review period that we are about to go into, we will have spent 40 per cent more in the college sector than the previous Administration did in eight years. I am comparing our eight-year period with the previous Administration’s eight-year period. We will have spent 40 per cent more in cash terms in the college sector than the previous Administration did.
One need only look at the impact of the capital spend on the college sector. I was in the new Motherwell College in Ravenscraig the other day—it takes pride of place in the Ravenscraig estate. If we look at the improvements at Cumbernauld College and other colleges throughout Scotland, we see that the capital estate is absolutely ready for the 21st century. As part of our NPD programme, we will include new college campuses in Inverness, Glasgow and Kilmarnock. It is therefore simply not true to say that the Government is neglecting the college sector.
My colleague Mr Swinney will make an announcement in the period ahead about his decisions on the future of enterprise zones in Scotland. I agree, and I know that Mr Swinney agrees, with Patricia Ferguson that, in devising and designing the enterprise zone policy, we must ensure that there is no repetition of what happened with many enterprise zones in the 1980s—including Clydebank, for example—when far too often the jobs that went into the enterprise zone were simply relocated from adjacent areas. One of the major considerations in designing the enterprise zones that Mr Swinney will announce is the need to ensure that there is net additionality in jobs and investment into the regional and national economies of Scotland. I am sure that, when Mr Swinney makes his announcement, everybody will be satisfied.
There have been a number of myths around the urban regeneration companies. I fully understand the concern of members, and I say to Duncan McNeil that I am happy to meet him as the constituency member for Inverclyde. I am also happy to meet Stuart McMillan, although by the sounds of things I might need two meetings—one with one and one with the other.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Of course.
Very briefly, Mr McNeil.
The minister offered a meeting to the constituency MSP. Will he extend the invitation to all West Scotland representatives? I do not know why he would invite only Stuart McMillan in particular.
I never have any problem in extending invitations to all list members because I want to educate them all about the facts. The reality is that Labour-led COSLA reached an agreement with the Scottish Government in 2008 that the money for the URCs from Scottish Enterprise would come to an end as earmarked funding in 2013-14. I have given a guarantee to Riverside Inverclyde and Irvine Bay, and I will give the same guarantee to Clyde Gateway, that the Government will continue to work with all the URCs to ensure that, against the background of the severe cuts that we face, as much money as possible is made available to them to carry out their priority projects over the period ahead.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Unfortunately, I have to finish now. However, when the representatives come to see me, I will be able to explain to them that, despite Alistair Darling’s cuts, which are deeper than Margaret Thatcher’s were, we are still delivering for the people of Scotland.