Regeneration
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7992, in the name of Johann Lamont, on regeneration. Mr Kelly and others who wish to speak in the debate are now welcome to press their request-to-speak buttons.
09:16
I will explain my rather dishevelled look this morning and the stubble on my face: when I was playing football at the weekend, I took an elbow in my top lip. Fortunately, it was a constituent who did it, so I expect a bit of a sympathy vote in the election in May, that is for sure.
I take great pleasure in opening this debate on behalf of the Labour Party. Our debate focuses on the role of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in transforming some of the most deprived communities in Scotland and on the priority that the Scottish Government gives to regeneration more widely. We seek clarity from the Scottish Government on the approach that it intends to take to regeneration more widely and the future funding arrangements for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. I will say a bit more about that later. I will focus much of my speech on the trust and the work that it has done in various communities that are represented by various members. I will also talk about the many challenges that still exist in communities, even though we have been trying to tackle them for the best part of 12 or 13 years.
We need to be clear about the important role of Government—not just the Scottish Government, but the United Kingdom Government—in supporting the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Support from Government is fundamental to its work. The trust was established in 1999 and, as I said, it is supported by the UK and Scottish Governments. It is independent, and much of its activity complements other work to tackle the challenges in coalfield communities.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust website is a valuable place to visit. Members who did not do so before the debate should look at it to find out about the trust’s activity in Scotland. The front page of the website contains a good quote from the former Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, who said:
“I am confident that as a respected player in the regeneration field and among communities, the CRT will continue to play a valuable role in helping to regenerate some of Scotland’s most deprived communities. In order to assist the trust to continue its work in Scotland, I am happy to confirm that the Scottish Government will continue to support it and will invest £4.726 million in it over the next three years.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; c 4046.]
That funding was announced in a members’ business debate. There was support from across the chamber for that, and there has been a lot of interest in the projects that have been taken forward over the past three years as a result of that funding. There is cross-party support for the trust’s work, as well as support from outside the Parliament. I am sure that many members have visited projects in their communities to find out at first hand what is happening on a day-to-day basis.
The decline of the coal industry in the 1980s scarred communities—beyond recognition in some cases—and the effort to improve life chances in those communities is still a work in progress. The challenge of regenerating them has not gone away and will remain, particularly given the current economic issues that we have to deal with, the wider problems as part of the recent recession and the recovery that we hope we will enter into shortly.
The economic problems that the country has faced have had an even more significant impact on coalfield communities, but the Scottish Government amendment would remove our call for a commitment to sustain the funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which is a concern. The amendment intimates that regeneration funding should be
“focused on job-creation activities that can contribute to the economic revival of these communities.”
That is a fair point, but we need specifics on exactly what will happen to Coalfields Regeneration Trust funding in the next three years.
Levels of unemployment are increasing at an alarming rate. I have figures that compare the current situation that communities face with the situation pre-recession, specifically on the number of workers who have been out of work for six months or more. The figure has increased by 223 per cent in Clackmannanshire, 68 per cent in East Ayrshire, 352 per cent in East Lothian, 115 per cent in Fife, 230 per cent in Midlothian, 228 per cent in North Lanarkshire, 293 per cent in South Lanarkshire and 175 per cent in West Lothian. The figures are even worse when we look only at young people in the 18-to-24 age group. The increase among that age group is 110 per cent in Clackmannanshire, 400 per cent in East Lothian, 575 per cent in Midlothian, 307 per cent in North Lanarkshire and 422 per cent in West Lothian.
Those figures are worrying and say to me that the work that has been done in the past few years needs to gather pace and focus on employment opportunities in those particular communities, because they are still suffering from the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s and they will continue to suffer from those recessions, and the more recent one, if work is not delivered specifically to them.
John Park rightly argues for taking jobs into those key areas but, in the current difficult times, does workforce mobility also have a role? Given that a high proportion of young people go into further education, might it be more justifiable in some cases to encourage people to broaden their horizons?
Fundamentally, when we consider the opportunities that people in such communities need, we find that the issue initially is to provide them with skills. Some of those people are second or third generation economically inactive—their fathers and mothers and their grandparents have been out of work for some time. We cannot just grab them and move them somewhere else or say, “By the way, you can just go into another job, because we’ve given you specific skills.” Those people need help, which we cannot provide through a national project. They need specific local initiatives that are properly supported and which identify the real problems that those people and communities face. In many cases, that means giving people the basic skills to find employment in the first place. That has to be the focus, because funding for that, when properly directed, makes a difference.
I will come on to the figures that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has published and reports that it has produced on its work in making a difference in coalfield communities. However, I will first say a little about a project in my community that was the subject of a members’ business debate a few months ago: West Fife Enterprise. The project covers the coalfield communities of Oakley and Valleyfield in west Fife, which are surrounded by more affluent villages and towns. There is a challenge in integrating areas that need regeneration with other parts of Fife that are doing much better.
On Alex Johnstone’s point, I have seen at first hand how we can help young people who are longer-term unemployed. West Fife Enterprise gives people the basic skills that they need to go for job interviews and helps them to recognise that they have to turn up for work on time and fulfil their commitment to their employer, but it also develops people’s manual and technical skills to enable them to go on to employment. However, West Fife Enterprise is not just about helping individuals; it is about building a network of employers who are prepared to engage with the project and provide opportunities for young people to go into. It is all very well providing resources for a young person and taking them through a course, but if, at the end of that, there is nowhere for them to go, we will only make them even less enthusiastic about any employment opportunities that might arise in future.
Those projects, which are embedded in communities and are supported by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, are able to lever in funding from other bodies such as local authorities, as well as European funding. They are then able to support activity within communities that, it is hoped, allows young people over time to get into meaningful longer-term employment.
I am proud of West Fife Enterprise: anyone who has visited it will say exactly how wonderful it is. There will be real opportunities in future with regard to our aircraft carriers, the new Forth crossing and the potential developments in offshore wind in the Fife area. It will be a crying shame if we do not invest in young people to give them the opportunities and skills to benefit from the projects that are coming on stream. If we do not do that, we will just have skills shortages again, and a whole generation of people will miss out on filling those jobs in the future. That would be a real disaster not only for Fife, but for Scotland more generally.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust undoubtedly provides value for money. Its mission is to return coalfield areas to a sustainable position, so that they can be prosperous, viable and cohesive without on-going Government intervention. The trust has gone some way towards achieving that, by directly channelling £15.3 million into improving economic and social life in Scottish coalfield communities.
The trust has achieved substantial results. It has helped more than 20,000 young people back into work, and it has improved 270 community facilities. Those facilities are the fabric of communities. It is not just about getting young people back into work; it is about improving facilities to help people in communities to take some pride in where they live and work. The trust also supports more than 3,000 community initiatives.
If we are looking for value for money, which is a huge question that we as parliamentarians need to answer, we should note that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust levers in £1.37 for every £1 that it invests. It more than doubles the amount of money that it gets directly from the Scottish Government, and it makes a huge difference with that.
The trust has built the capacity of local community groups, as I have seen at first hand. I have visited groups that want to take projects forward in their local areas but which do not know what to do. They can turn to the trust. They can get funding for feasibility studies and they can engage with other communities outwith the coalfield community. They can then get on track developments that will make a difference, for example by developing community facilities.
Although employment is important, and we should focus on it, we need to ensure that we build institutions in our communities that will support the regeneration of those areas. I believe that members on all sides of the chamber share that view.
One of the best members’ business debates that I have taken part in was on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, as I mentioned earlier. It was brought to the chamber by my colleague Cathy Jamieson in November 2007. There was cross-party support for the motion, and Scottish National Party members such as Willie Coffey, John Wilson and Keith Brown, as well as Stewart Maxwell, who was the Minister for Communities and Sport at the time, spoke at length about the need to direct resources specifically into communities. There was a lot of support at the time not only for the employment initiatives, but for the wider work that could be taken forward.
There are no amendments today from the Conservative or Liberal parties, but I am interested to hear their views. Given the UK context, they may be able to shed some light on what is happening with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust at a UK level, because discussions on that will be running parallel to our discussions in Scotland. If they are not in a position to shed some light on those UK discussions, perhaps the minister can do so, through his officials,.
I know that the Conservatives in particular will feel that they have a responsibility to do something to help coalfield communities, but it is far too easy for us to look back when we need to look forward. I am concerned about the UK Government’s hands-off approach to supporting economic development just now, which really needs to be addressed.
There is no doubt that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has been a success. That view is shared by members on all sides of the chamber. I and my colleagues will highlight today the continuing challenge that coalfield communities face, but we need clarity from the minister and the SNP Government on whether the support for the trust will continue in its current form. If the Government commits to continue supporting the trust in its existing form, it will get support from us on the Labour side of the chamber. If it does not commit to doing so, we will have a serious issue, which we will be very concerned about and will take forward over the next few months.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of continued support from the Scottish Government for regeneration initiatives, particularly in the current economic climate; believes that it is essential for effective regeneration activity to be co-ordinated across the Scottish Government and local government and in communities; welcomes the many regeneration initiatives supporting local communities and sustained by local involvement across Scotland; recognises in particular the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in Scotland as an organisation that has played a central role in supporting vital projects that have improved the quality of life for thousands of people living in former mining communities, has helped over 20,000 young people, supported over 2,000 people back into work and supported over 3,000 community initiatives and highlights the fact that every £1 spent by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust generates £1.37 of matched funding to support these important projects, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is sustained at existing levels during the next spending period.
09:29
I welcome the debate as the son-in-law and grandson of miners, and as a former director of Cumnock and Doon Enterprise Trust, which was the predecessor to British Coal Enterprise. The trust was set up to regenerate the Cumnock and Doon Valley area, and during my reign there George Foulkes MP—as he was at the time—declared us to be the best-run economic development agency in Britain.
I am particularly committed to the future not only of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, but of the coalfield communities. It is critical that we consider the issue in terms of the communities and not just the trust, despite the fact that the trust is an excellent organisation.
I confirm everything that Alex Neil said. Cumnock and Doon Enterprise Trust was a very well-run enterprise company, and he did the job very well. I am sorry that since then he has not progressed as much as we had all hoped.
I certainly would not regard the House of Lords as progress.
In the first half of my speech I will deal with the general issue of regeneration in Scotland, and in the second half I will address the specifics of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.
As members will know, last week I launched our discussion document on the future of regeneration policy in Scotland, “Building a Sustainable Future”. It is as relevant to the coalfield communities as it is to any other community in Scotland that is facing difficulty, such as Clydebank, the east end of Glasgow, the Cowdenbeaths of this world, and areas such as Kilmarnock and Moray that are facing major closures.
I hope that we can have a grown-up debate about the future of regeneration policies in Scotland for the 21st century. I believe that we need a step change in regeneration across the country, and I hope that, from the document and the discussion that it ignites, we will end up with an ambitious strategy.
I agree with the minister, and I look forward to reading the document and contributing to the discussion around it. Does the minister agree that regeneration is not something that can be done in an area for a year or two years, as it requires a sustained programme of investment? In Clydebank, which I represent, we are halfway through a process of regeneration. We are not at the end of it yet, and I hope that this Government and the next Government will take account of that.
Indeed, and I have very good news for Clydebank this morning if the member will listen for a few more minutes.
I agree that regeneration is not something that can be done in a year or two. John Park mentioned in his speech that a number of pits closed during the 18 years when the Tories were in power. He did not mention, however, that the Labour Government closed 39 pits in Scotland, a third of which were in Fife. The reality is that pits have closed under both Tory and Labour Governments. The one thing that the SNP can say is that we have not closed any pits in Scotland.
In terms of regeneration in general, we are already committed to record levels of funding to improve the physical and economic fabric of our cities, towns and villages, including the coalfield communities. It is not just about the trust, although it plays an important role. To put things in perspective, the trust’s budget from the Scottish Government is about £1.6 million this year. That is divided among 13 local authority areas, so the average is just over £100,000 per area. I do not think that any of us would argue that that is anywhere near enough to tackle the problems of the coalfield communities, which is why we have put into coalfield community areas more than £25 million through the town centre regeneration fund and another £1.3 million through our wider role fund. That is nearly £27 million that the Labour Party did not deliver.
First, the minister has just agreed with Des McNulty that funding is needed over a longer period. He said that funding is available just now. Will funding be available for the next two or three years?
Secondly, I pointed out in my speech that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust levers in funding, so it is not just on its own. Everyone in the chamber has supported the work of the trust. The minister cannot suddenly say that it is not worth the money that he is putting into it.
I am not saying that. I am saying that Labour lacks enough ambition for the coalfield communities. It is talking about £1.6 million, but including the coalfield money this year we are talking about £29 million for the coalfield communities. We are committed not only to the coalfield communities but, as I said, to regeneration to deal, apart from anything else, with the dire consequences of the banking and economic crisis that we inherited from the previous Government.
If members will listen, they will hear some news on the urban regeneration companies, including Clydebank Re-built. It will be very good news for Mr McNulty. He wrote in the Clydebank Post that a key litmus test of the SNP’s commitment to Clydebank would be our commitment to the Scottish Enterprise element of the money for regeneration there. After I tell him the news, I look forward to his column next week saying that the SNP has passed the test because it has delivered for Clydebank as well as the other URC areas in Scotland.
I am delighted to announce that the final funding allocations for the urban regeneration companies in 2011-12 are as follows: £21.5 million for Clyde Gateway URC; £4 million for Riverside Inverclyde; £4 million for Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company; and £1.6 million for Clydebank Re-built.
On top of that, we will use the £50 million joint European support for sustainable investment in city areas holding fund that has been established in partnership with the European Investment Bank to invest in revenue-generating regeneration projects in key regeneration areas, including the URC areas and the coalfield community areas. The 13 local authority areas that qualify for that £50 million JESSICA fund coincide with the coalfield community areas.
On top of that, we will invest £10 million in vacant and derelict land in some of our most deprived communities, thereby refocusing the fund’s objectives on stimulating economic growth and job creation in a small number of priority sites, as well as continuing to support the regeneration of our communities through registered social landlords by making available £6 million of funding.
On top of that, we will encourage local authorities, working with the Scottish Futures Trust, to bring forward tax increment finance proposals to kick-start economic development.
Will the minister give way?
No, not at the moment.
However, we are not only investing our and the taxpayer’s money in those communities for physical and business regeneration. A key issue is ensuring that people are job ready. Employability is a key contributor to raising the employment levels in those areas. While physical regeneration is essential, it is not good enough by itself.
Employment rates in Scotland have risen again in recent months. It is good to be able to report that 71.1 per cent of Scots are in employment, which means that we have a higher rate of employment than any of the other home nations in the UK.
I am delighted that my colleague John Swinney was able to announce a raft of measures in his budget last week to ensure that young people are not left behind as a result of the recession. His announcements included support for 46,500 training opportunities, which included 25,000 modern apprenticeships next year against the Labour demand for 21,000—we exceeded it by 25 per cent.
Last week, John Swinney also announced community jobs Scotland, a new programme that will offer at least six months’ work in the third sector for up to 2,000 young unemployed people who are struggling to get into the labour market.
I point out that at no point during the budget negotiations did the Labour Party ask for one penny for the coalfield communities. Indeed, Labour’s record in those communities and in its dealings with the miners down the years is appalling. In particular, when in government, the Labour Party cheated nearly 2,000 miners out of compensation to which they were entitled as a result of lung and related diseases. Labour members should hang their heads in shame at what they have done to mining communities in Scotland.
Will the minister give way?
No, the minister is winding up.
As my father and grandfather used to say, we could always rely on the Labour Party being loyal to the miners when it was election time. In between elections, it sold them down the river. That is something that the Scottish Government will not do.
I move amendment S3M-7992.1, to leave out from second “sustained” to end and insert:
“focused on job-creation activities that can contribute to the economic revival of these communities.”
09:40
The Scottish Conservatives welcome this debate on regeneration. I congratulate Johann Lamont on lodging the motion so that we can have the debate. However, I am disappointed that Labour chose to take such a narrow view by concentrating on coalfield regeneration and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust when regeneration and the many alternative approaches to it remain subjects of debate in communities, local authorities, academic circles and, periodically, the Parliament.
Regeneration will be increasingly important as budgets become tighter, demographics change and housing stock becomes older and needs more investment. It is perhaps ironic that Labour has chosen to debate the subject when the party has left areas such as Glasgow—where its heartlands are traditionally to be found—with projects that have not resulted in the kind of community-led regeneration that the Scottish Conservatives would like and which has been so successful elsewhere outside the coalfields.
In Arbroath, for example, Angus Council has achieved a great deal by ensuring that communities lead regeneration. However, regeneration in some parts of Scotland has led to gentrification that has priced whole communities out of areas in which they have lived, sometimes for generations, and has replaced traditional businesses with upmarket cafes and wine bars. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the kind of regeneration that ordinary communities want to experience.
Labour stands here big on rhetoric and light on action. When the Scottish Conservatives entered into negotiations for the budget settlement this year, we secured £16 million of investment to, among other things, kick-start stalled projects and £10 million of help for business start-ups, job creation and exporting, which may be of use to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Our budget negotiations delivered for jobs, housing and communities.
Perhaps Alex Johnstone can explain the approach that the Conservative-led UK Government is taking to Coalfields Regeneration Trust funding. That would be helpful.
It would be helpful, but all I can say is that, on inquiry, we were told that an announcement would be made soon.
The Conservatives made efforts during the budget negotiations to ensure that money was made available for projects. Having secured that money for Scotland’s communities, we and other parties had to watch the Labour Party indulge in the worst kind of obstructive, negative politics by contributing nothing but negativity to the budget process.
To those who look to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to help to improve their communities, it will, no doubt, be a bitter irony that the Labour Party seeks to indulge in more than two hours of political grandstanding on potential funding cuts having, only two weeks ago, sat on its hands and wasted a golden opportunity to secure via the budget process the funds that it seeks.
In light of that, many will view today’s debate as little more than a political stunt. Who knows? They may well be right. The Scottish Labour Party has form on that. In 2008, Labour members abstained on the final budget motion even though they had amended it and, in 2009, they chose to vote against the budget, only to U-turn on a loose promise of more apprenticeships, demonstrating yet again that Labour is for turning.
Having said that, I commend the Coalfields Regeneration Trust for its hard work, dedication and many successes. It has much to be proud of and its record is enviable.
Labour looks for further funding, but it strikes me that its record on providing an economic environment that would allow coalfield communities to flourish is significantly less than adequate. For example, no fewer than 1.7 million manufacturing jobs were lost throughout the United Kingdom between 1997 and 2009. This country’s manufacturing industry declined by a staggering 9.3 per cent in the same period, which is the largest decline on record under any Government.
Not content with that, Labour underlined its hapless economic record by taking the country to the brink of bankruptcy. It has left the Conservative-led coalition Government with the biggest peacetime deficit in history. In closing the debate, perhaps Johann Lamont will take a moment to reflect on the fact that, while she seeks to secure funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, the UK Government is spending a staggering £120 million on interest every day to try to pay off Labour’s historic legacy of debt.
Get on your bike.
The funding that Johann Lamont seeks for the trust could have been obtained many times over, if it were not for that Westminster legacy.
Labour’s economic incompetence does not end there. To add insult to injury, council tax rose under previous Labour Administrations by 62 per cent. Not content with that, Labour is now in favour of raising it again. No taxation stone is left unturned under Labour. Some Labour members wish to use the income tax-raising powers. It will no doubt be a relief to the Scottish taxpayer that the SNP Government took its eye off the ball and let those powers lapse.
The Scottish Conservatives have consistently supported the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s important work. At 5 o’clock, we will do our bit to unite the Parliament around the motion, as amended by Alex Neil.
09:47
I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. As John Park said, when the Parliament has debated regeneration in Government time or in members’ business debates, cross-party consensus has been achieved. That consensus has been strained so far this morning, but we know that an election is looming—that was proved when a member of the public elbowed a Labour candidate in the face. I wish John Park luck as he co-ordinates the remainder of the Labour Party’s election campaign. [Interruption.] I can share stories about my injuries on the doorstep, but that is a different debate.
If we were in any doubt about the looming election campaign, we heard in the minister’s speech a list of figures, some of which were wrapped up with others, some of which had been previously announced and some of which were already in budgets that agencies had set and which had been packaged slightly differently. That is not to undermine the impact that we would like funding to have in the communities that the Government has specified, but the health warning is relevant.
I state categorically the Liberal Democrats’ support for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s work, the Industrial Communities Alliance’s wider work and the work of their partners with local authorities throughout Scotland and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. All that work has enthusiastic backing.
I will highlight one element of the UK context and describe some challenges and how we can address them—collectively, we hope. I will also refer to local areas in the constituency that I am proud to represent in the Parliament.
John Park made points about the UK Government. We will hear its view on its relationship with the trust in due course, as has been said. When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, he had a policy of establishing regional select committees in England to focus on communities that he felt had not been represented strongly by the Government or the Westminster Parliament, but that policy never came to fruition.
It is worth putting it on the record that, within a month of the coalition Government taking power in the UK, tax incentive measures were put in place for areas outside south-east England and training support was made available for those areas. Development support and infrastructure investment in many industrial communities outside south-east England have now been put in place. We will have to judge the success of those measures, of course, but it is worth recognising that they represent the best way of starting to address the fact that equality declined and the wealth gap increased in the 13 years of the Labour Administration.
We heard from Duncan McNeil a comment from a sedentary position about unemployment. No one at all glories in any unemployment. In the past week, I have met individuals who face difficulties with their employment in the next week and who face redundancy. However, it is a fact that, although unemployment levels are far too high, they are still below the forecasts that Alistair Darling set when he left the Treasury. I am not at all complacent about the situation, but it is worth putting that information on the record.
I move on to work with the industrial communities that we all represent. Many such areas are still struggling with seismic changes not only in the economy but in socioeconomic elements. John Park rehearsed all those issues, about which I agree. However, we have a different approach to the solutions. The framework for supporting such communities is insufficient and a series of ad hoc announcements for individual programmes that can change from one year to another is also insufficient.
A core purpose of the Scottish Development Agency was to help communities and their economies to adjust to changes in the economy. However, its successor, Scottish Enterprise, and Skills Development Scotland—with its relationship with local authorities—will not do the work that is needed to achieve our long-term ambitions for many such communities.
Last March—almost a year ago—Rhona Brankin spoke in Cathy Jamieson’s debate on industrial communities. Rhona Brankin rehearsed the difficulties that still exist in Midlothian, which borders part of the constituency that I represent. Her area is predominantly a mining constituency, whereas my area is predominantly a mill constituency—paper in Penicuik and textiles in the Borders. All such mills used the mines in Rhona Brankin’s constituency for their fuel source.
The disparity and lack of coherence in the support from Scottish Enterprise, local authorities and our skills agency do not create the support that we need to go forward. That is why we have looked back and why we want a radical change.
We would prefer our communities and economies to be supported through regional development banks, which would bring together existing support levels and provide a single focus for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust or the Industrial Communities Alliance to lobby and increasingly to work with in partnership. That arrangement could support the adjustment in skills, training, economic support and inward investment in our existing economies and it could be used in considering the future of life sciences, biosciences, earth sciences and pharmaceutical industries—the new industries that are coming into the areas that relied heavily on the former industries.
Will the member take an intervention?
If I have time, I will do so.
The intervention will have to be brief.
I give way briefly to Helen Eadie.
Does Jeremy Tolson understand that the CRT’s work bears no resemblance to the investment that he talks about?
Mr Purvis.
Thank you for getting my name correct, Presiding Officer.
I am not saying that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust will be replaced by any of those bodies. It should come as no surprise that I pay due credit to the work that Helen Eadie does, but the number of organisations that are listed in the mapping exercise that her office has undertaken highlights the confusion and lack of consistency in this area. There is no real focus, and that is letting down the communities that I am talking about.
If the work of the alliance or the trust is to be better supported, it would be better if they could focus on working with a single development bank that can lever in the investment about which the minister spoke. That approach would send out a signal that we are addressing the deep-seated problems that John Park set out. If we simply tinker at the edges, we will let these communities down. The Liberal Democrats’ long-term view is to support these communities. We cannot afford to continue to let them down.
We come to the open debate. Speeches of around six minutes, please. I call Duncan McNeil. [Interruption.]
09:56
My apologies, Presiding Officer. I thought that Frank McAveety wanted to get past me.
The debate has got off to a depressing start. At least Alex Johnstone did not claim to be a friend of the miners—how could he? The debate has not changed in relation to how fast and deep the budget cuts are and how high unemployment will travel.
I come from Inverclyde and represent that area, where we know all about de-industrialisation. Mass unemployment ensues, taking work out of a working community. That destroys that community, leading to deprivation, poverty, health problems, increased crime and drugs. Then comes depopulation, which puts pressure on services and schools. How do we fill our schools? How do we run our hospitals and maintain our maternity services? All of that becomes a massive challenge.
Of course, de-industrialisation changed the political environment, too, in many areas and certainly in mine. In the Scottish Parliament, we—in coalition with other parties—at least recognised some of those challenges and were able to save our maternity hospitals.
The initial challenge was to try to replace sunset industries with sunrise industries and big jobs with big jobs. However, full-time employment was replaced by part-time employment and good pay with low pay. Casualisation also ensued. All of that was made possible by a Conservative Government. Another Conservative Government is at it again.
The discussion document is important in some ways to the next stage—I will come back to that. It is important that we learn the lessons about how to support our communities and find out what works and what does not work.
We have a model that we believe works. The Scottish Parliament supported us in setting up the urban regeneration company. We recognised the need to bring together the private and public sectors and to drive forward our ambition for our community. The community became involved in that response. We also recognised that it was not simply about replacing jobs. We realised that there was a massive job to do in reclaiming land and clearing brownfield sites. The land needed to be decontaminated—it had been poisoned by the industrial chemicals that had been used over years and years. We needed to build houses in the public sector and the private sector and agreed a housing stock transfer. We also agreed to build a new school to tackle attainment. All of that was opposed by Alex Neil and his party—
Rubbish.
No it is not. I am prepared to take an intervention from the minister.
On housing, we delivered second stage transfer in Glasgow. Labour did not deliver one second stage transfer; we delivered 20,000 homes.
That makes my case completely. The minister opposed housing stock transfer and if we had listened to him, Stuart McMillan and others, people would now be living in even poorer housing. If we had listened to Alex Neil on schools, we would not have the new schools that we have right now. That is the reality. The minister has proved my case.
We also recognised that our college was at the heart of our community. Our college could address the skills deficit that we had. We know that regeneration is a people business. We needed to get people involved and move them on.
My only regret is that the “Building a Sustainable Future” discussion document came too late. It is a smokescreen in relation to what is happing now. It was produced after the budget—a budget that has cut by in excess of 60 per cent the funding for our urban regeneration company, which had such ambitious plans to modernise my area. My college is in crisis. It faces massive budget cuts and 90 of its people face redundancy. All of that puts pressure on the young people in my area. Every pound that we cut shoves up youth unemployment.
Another cut from this Government is the unfair budget settlement for our local council, but the Government refuses to recognise that, despite assurances from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, that he would take into account the needs of communities that are less resilient to cuts. If there is a community anywhere in Scotland that is less resilient than mine in that regard, I do not know where it is. Our council needs a fair settlement and our college needs to be funded appropriately. What has the Scottish Government done other than cut the budgets of a community that is less resilient? That is even before the cuts in public sector employment come. We are overdependent on the public sector in Scotland. That is not because everybody wants to work in the public sector but because we have lost massive amounts of our manufacturing industry.
When we got the Scottish Parliament, we expected that it would work for communities such as mine. It did for a period, but it is no longer working for those communities. When Labour tackles the Tories on the cuts that they are making in Scotland, we expect the minister’s support. We do not expect him to stab us in the back by cutting college and local government budgets and increasing unemployment.
10:02
I apologise for having to leave the debate about half an hour before its end.
I wish John Park every success in the recovery of his lip. Indeed, I wish him every success in the coming election. I hope that Labour sets new records—for second places. The contest to come will be interesting.
Regeneration is a subject that is timely and important to communities not only in central Scotland but right across Scotland. In my remarks, I will make some comments about areas outwith central Scotland.
John Park highlighted an important issue when he said that it is not correct to focus only on people. When we look at regeneration, I agree that we also have to consider the physical, social and economic environments. In fact, a complex set of interlocking issues make up the single issue that is regeneration. The need for regeneration has run through the generations in far too many of our communities.
That is precisely why the Conservatives absolutely miss the point when they focus on the idea of workers relocating to find new work. Indeed, Norman Tebbit has been on the campaign trail in Wales this week. He gave an interview in which he suggested, once again, that the “get on your bike” phrase that he used years ago still has a resonance. That focus is simplistic, inadequate and inappropriate.
It is good to hear members on Labour’s front bench—if not members on Labour’s back benches—reinforcing the importance of the Forth replacement crossing, which is not only a transport investment but one that creates significant jobs. I hope that Lord Foulkes remains a sole voice.
Regeneration is a key part of our economy. It is needed just as much in rural villages and towns as it is in urban city centres. Just as we have seen significant change in the industrial structure of Scotland in many communities in the central belt, so we have seen the structure of our traditional industries of fishing and farming change significantly. Those industries have reduced the number of people who are employed within them and that has caused suffering for a number of associated engineering industries, too.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust does excellent work for the communities that it supports. I do not think that during today’s debate we will hear criticism of its efforts, although we may focus on differences.
However, there is a Scotland beyond the central belt. Just yesterday, on 23 February, Portsoy in my constituency was granted £500,000 from Historic Scotland’s conservation area regeneration scheme to repair historic buildings in the harbour and to give people training in traditional skills. That is the kind of initiative that the Government is taking. It will make the area more attractive to visitors, but it will also boost the local economy. Building on traditional skills and renovation work will create for young people, in particular, key opportunities to engage in new activities.
Elsewhere in my constituency, there have been successful regeneration schemes in Peterhead, and £3 million has been spent on a townscape heritage project in Banff. In August, Aberdeenshire Council allocated slightly more than a third of £1 million from Scottish Enterprise to regeneration projects in Banff and Buchan.
Regeneration is important throughout Scotland. That is why I welcome the document that the Government has just published on the subject, which recognises that many of the traditional models are less viable. For too many companies, reliance on debt finance simply is not possible. Together with difficulties in accessing land and property in the current climate, that is making it more difficult overall to attract investment. We need community-led regeneration, rather than a top-down approach. We need to empower our communities so that, through the Scottish Government’s concordat with local authorities in particular, we can find ways of doing the things that are required in our local communities. Regeneration works when each community has a stake in it.
I think in particular of Maud, a small village in my constituency, where over a long period—regeneration is not a quick fix—the community has engaged in redeveloping an area that 50 years ago was the biggest, most active cattle market in the whole of Scotland. Today, the area is thriving, with many different activities in a new centre that has been developed in close co-operation with the community, through a planning for real project that engaged the very young and the very old.
Like others, I welcomed the 2007 debate on coalfield regeneration. After waiting for four years for another debate, we find that two have come along on the same day—not, I must say, miraculous scheduling on the part of the Labour business manager.
In comparison with the minister, I must go back one more generation to reach my mining ancestors. My great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather were miners in Bannockburn. They were among more than 300 Stevensons who were miners in that community 150 years ago. Business changes, and we must respond. Regeneration will be important. I will support the Government tonight.
10:08
Understandably, much of today’s debate has been about the past, because many of the communities that we represent have been shaped and defined by their history. Duncan McNeil made a passionate speech about how the private sector used to be a substantial contributor to the generation of wealth, opportunity and employment in Inverclyde. Because of a variety of issues that were exacerbated by the attitude of Tory Governments from 1979 onwards, which did not have any serious policies to address the situation in such areas, that ceased to be the case.
The same thing happened in the east end of Glasgow. The Glasgow eastern area renewal project was the critical project there in the mid-1970s. That is an interesting period, because in the mid-1970s the minister was a researcher for another political party, for which he produced documents that identified the ills of conservatism and modern capitalism. I welcomed those documents. At the time, I was a very young man—probably in my early teens, if the minister cares to believe me. The disappointment today is that he has fallen into the trap of saying that everything that happened before was not effective. I know that, as a teenager, the minister read his books on Marxism. The reality of international capitalism is that an interventionist strategy by the Labour Government and other Governments across the world was required to address the international economic crisis of the past three years. The minister’s comments were disappointing.
I mentioned the fact that the minister spent time as a researcher because that shaped his speech in today’s debate. Cleverly, like most researchers, he gave us a barrage of statistics, possibly to camouflage some of the decisions that have been made. The history of social housing in recent years is not about whether only six council houses were built under Labour but about the amount of social housing that was built under the previous Administration, regardless of whether that happened to have the imprimatur of a local authority or of a housing association. That point matters—during my childhood in Glasgow, I experienced some of the negative aspects of council housing and it is not the golden experience that it is claimed to be. The real issue is the budget that is available.
I will focus on what the challenge to the Parliament should be, and I will comment on one or two points that members have made. First, youth unemployment is the pressing matter of today, because the youth unemployment rate tends to be two or three times higher than the average rate. That is a critically different statistic. Secondly, in the last six months of the Labour Government that some have maligned, youth unemployment fell and youth employment increased. Today, after nine months of the coalition Government, youth unemployment has increased and youth employment has fallen. That is the statistical reality. We must decide what we want to do for the communities concerned.
Each party has made a contribution. It is not about whether we are absolutely right all the time or whether the Government is absolutely wrong all the time—it is about what we want to do. The disappointing thing since January is that it has required a reaction from me and many others for the money that the minister has announced for the different authorities to be reinstated. Understandably, he is shaking his head. I know that he has sent me a letter about these issues. He can probably talk to me about them, because he wants to meet me to discuss them. I will be delighted to do that. However, if there had not been a stushie about budget cuts by Scottish Enterprise, which is an arm’s-length organisation, I do not think that the minister would have made the announcements that he has made today. That is the reality. However, I welcome the fact that some of the contributions have been reinstated.
Alex Johnstone deployed an interesting argument. He claimed that regeneration strategies had not really worked in some places in Glasgow. I would welcome a visit from him to Clyde Gateway, because the company has been using public money to generate opportunities for private investment and employment. It wants to continue to do that and must get the resources for that purpose. The minister has made some announcements on the issue, to which the board of Clyde Gateway will respond in due course.
Because of the company’s work, Aviva has invested £10 million in a new office development that is located in the east end. The connectivity that the M74 will offer will make a real difference. The commitments that have been made to a business park will generate small business growth, which Alex Johnstone should welcome. If I read project Merlin correctly, it says that we should encourage small and medium-sized enterprises in order to grow the economy. That is a UK Government project. I do not know whether the minister has a similar sorcerer’s role; given his speech, any such project should probably be termed project Voldemort. One is not meant to mention the dark lord’s name, but I will name him today—it is the Minister for Housing and Communities.
Alf Young, a serious commentator on economics, gave up his time for Riverside Inverclyde because he believed that it would make a difference. He has said:
“I just feel absolutely betrayed. I came into this thinking there was a cross-party, cross-parliament commitment.”
I hope that, in the discussion with Riverside Inverclyde, the minister will try to re-establish trust. Robert Crawford, who was also a researcher—for the minister’s new party—a long time ago, has said:
“it is the wrong time in the economic cycle to be doing this.”
People who were researchers for different parties—the minister, Alf Young and Robert Crawford—are all saying similar things, I think. We need to pull that together.
The east end of Glasgow needs to have trust reinforced year after year, because people in the east end feel that the economic strategies of successive Administrations—of different hues—over the years, going back to the 1920s, did not address the cumulative need of the area. We need to rebuild trust; I hope that we can do that in a meeting.
Clyde Gateway would love to have the minister back in the east end of Glasgow, so that we can demonstrate what we are trying to do with the resources that are available. We need to rebuild the trust that existed, because over the past two or three months it has been fractured, which is disappointing. I hope that the minister will be able to address the issue.
10:15
I am happy to take part in the debate and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the SNP’s excellent record on regeneration activities.
The Labour motion talks about recognising
“the importance of continued support from the Scottish Government for regeneration initiatives”.
That is a welcome recognition by Labour that the Scottish Government is investing to help regenerate our communities. In the spirit of consensus, I can say that the creation of the urban regeneration companies, which were set up before 2007, has provided a focused approach to helping to turn around areas that were neglected.
On 24 January, the Greenock Telegraph reported that Alf Young, the chair of Riverside Inverclyde, said:
“I have always been told by the politicians and their officials this was a 10-year mission to take 20-odd years of dereliction and do something about it, and that they would back us.”
I used that quotation in the budget debate, and I have no qualms about using it again.
When I was growing up in Inverclyde, I was appalled to see the dereliction that engulfed much of the area. An attempt was made to make Inverclyde a better place, with enterprise zone status, but unfortunately that approach did not fulfil its potential. I hope that the URC, Riverside Inverclyde, creates an opportunity for Inverclyde to move forward and for the URC to help to empower the whole community.
During stage 3 of the budget debate, John Swinney agreed to reinstate some of the money that was due to be removed from the URC budget. The £6 million, in addition to the planned £25 million, will certainly help the URCs; I know that it will help Riverside Inverclyde.
Does the member agree that a cut in the URC budget in excess of 60 per cent is outrageous and will damage our ambition for Inverclyde?
I wrote to Alex Neil about that a while ago and received a response.
Riverside Inverclyde is ahead of the game. It has developed things sooner than was planned in its initial business plan. That is a positive. The announcement this morning that Riverside Inverclyde will receive a further £1.1 million in addition to the £2.9 million that it was due to receive is a positive step. I welcome additional money coming to Inverclyde. I voted for more money to come to Inverclyde in the budget. Labour did not. Mr McNeil did not. I am disappointed with that.
Riverside Inverclyde has made great strides in trying to improve the area and, as I have said, is ahead of schedule, which is encouraging. However, it cannot and, I am sure, will not rest on its laurels.
I have visited a representative of the Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company. I do not intend to say much about the company as I am sure that my colleague Kenneth Gibson will do so later. I saw the positive effects of the URC on the Clyde Marina in Ardrossan and was greatly impressed by the proposals. Representatives of the Clyde Marina are members of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism, which I convene. I understand the URC’s potential and the necessity for it to succeed.
Regeneration takes many forms, from the money allocated through the town centre regeneration fund to moneys for local authorities, URCs—where they exist—new schools and new and improved housing. I will come back to that last example in a moment.
As Alf Young said, there has been dereliction over 20 years. This is not just about providing shiny new buildings, although those are essential. There is another important element. Giving evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee during its enterprise inquiry, Dr Ian Wall, who is from Scotland’s independent regeneration network, said:
“Regeneration is about people, not things.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 26 January 2011; c 4694.]
That can get lost in translation when regeneration is discussed. Shiny new buildings are all well and good but if no or little sustainability is built in we are just creating a rod for our own back and we will not address the complexity of regeneration in its entirety.
Does the member agree that the strength of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is that it is about people? It is about people who are committed to the coalfield communities, who understand their history and who have a vision for the future. It is therefore mean-spirited at the very least to cut a relatively small budget that would allow those people’s energy and commitment to an area to continue to support the communities that they come from.
People, whether in the Coalfields Regeneration Trust or the URCs in Inverclyde and Irvine Bay, are the most important element here.
I return to a couple of points that I mentioned earlier. On housing, the SNP campaigned against housing stock transfer in Inverclyde. I have no qualms about that campaign. I am delighted that the SNP has provided record funding for new housing in Inverclyde through River Clyde Homes and registered social landlords. The SNP Government has a tremendous record on housing for Inverclyde.
There are issues at James Watt College, but those are wider than just the reduced money from the Scottish Government. The fundamental problem is the £1.3 billion cut to the Scottish Government this year, which is the result of not only the Tories and Lib Dems cutting the budget but the economic mismanagement of the Labour Party when it was in power in the previous Administration.
10:21
Perhaps Stuart McMillan would have been happier if the Labour Government at Westminster had allowed the Scottish banks to go to the wall and the country to suffer the consequences.
Much of the debate has been about the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. I have not had much contact with the trust—the last pit in Maryhill closed in about 1963, so I do not remember it—but I am familiar with its work and the fact that the loss of jobs and economic drivers in the coalfield communities echoes what happened in communities such as mine when heavy industry, on which Glasgow depended, disappeared, creating problems such as the ones Duncan McNeil identified.
Last year, the minister visited Maryhill burgh halls in my constituency. The building once housed local government and civic justice and was the social hub of the district. A project will bring the main civic building of the area back to life. It is a true regeneration project that is funded by a large range of organisations, including the town centre regeneration fund.
When the halls reopen later this year, 20 stained glass panels that were removed when it lay unused will be returned to their rightful place. The panels are important artistically, but they are also a graphic link to our industrial past as they feature 20 trades that were carried out by the men and women of Maryhill in the 1870s. If we undertake some basic research about the panels, we find that they have something else in common: all the trades operated within yards of the Forth and Clyde canal. The canal was a vital part of the infrastructure that supported Glasgow at that time and Maryhill was at the heart of it. It is entirely appropriate therefore that the Forth and Clyde canal will be at the centre of the transformational area that is planned for Maryhill. The plan includes some 400 new homes, shops and restaurants. We have heard rumours that there might even be a hotel, which some local wags have suggested might be called the Maryhilton.
The housing will be a mix of private and social rented properties and it will be located adjacent to the canal locks. It is hoped that new green space areas will be established and that a Glasgow paddle sports centre can be established further along the canal at Speirs Wharf, making the entire area and canal corridor a focus for water sports. Some social housing has already been built and occupied in an area known as the Botany. I sincerely hope that Maryhill does not have to wait as long as the residents of the Botany had to wait for their new houses.
The Ruchill area of my constituency owes its existence to the new industries that sprang up along the canal, but as those industries disappeared so too did the jobs for local people. The last big employer was Ruchill hospital, but it, too, closed in 1998. However, that challenge was seen as an opportunity—an opportunity to build new, quality housing on the extensive hospital grounds. Unfortunately, Scottish Enterprise, which owns the land, has not shown the leadership that is needed to take forward that ambitious scheme. The boom years of property development have come and gone, and still the site lies empty.
As others have said, regeneration is not just about building new houses and facilities; it is also about making good places that have an identity—something distinctive that marks them out from other areas. In the case of Ruchill, it was some of the hospital buildings, standing tall in the skyline, that provided that distinctiveness. Scottish Enterprise argued that, for the site to be marketable, it was necessary to demolish parts of the former hospital. It was allowed to do so on the basis that it would protect the remaining buildings until a buyer was found, but it has now decided that almost all the remaining buildings should go too, partly because of its neglect of those buildings, which will now be expensive to secure. I strongly object to that proposal, particularly as it affects buildings that Historic Scotland has listed at category A or B. I have said so, and I will continue to say so.
Maryhill burgh halls was fortunate enough to secure funding from the town centre regeneration fund, but Possilpark was not. Despite the fact that Glasgow City Council, the local regeneration agency and the local housing association presented an excellent, innovative proposal for the regeneration of Saracen Street to complement the new housing and new school that have already been built and the Saracen Exchange project, which will create a new business premises in the area, the proposal was turned down, but I am delighted that those agencies have enough faith in their proposal to want to continue to take it forward on their own. Unlike the Scottish Government, those local agencies understand the imperative behind the initiative. They know that Possilpark is a vibrant community with great people and that those people should be supported, so I look forward to seeing their hard work come to fruition.
Across my constituency there are a number of vacant brownfield sites that are ripe for development, but many have lain empty for far too long. That is recognised in the city plan, and the possibility exists that at least one of those sites will be used for a large-scale retail development and for housing at a later date, but we need more. We need a signal to be sent out by the Parliament and the Government that we cannot wait around for the economy to improve. We must seize the initiative and begin regeneration projects that will kick-start the economic recovery so that our communities can reap the benefits when that recovery comes.
The Government inherited a good legacy of work by the previous Scottish Executive and by Glasgow City Council and our housing associations to build new homes, new schools and new jobs. I hope that the funding that Alex Neil referred to has the desired effect, but just because the minister announces money twice does not mean to say that he can spend it twice, and I am afraid that the launching of a consultation document in the SNP Government’s dying days is not much of a legacy for the next Government.
10:28
Regeneration is integral to the betterment of our society, and the Scottish Government has shown a strong commitment to the regeneration of our urban areas since it took office in 2007. That has included the provision of substantial levels of funding for urban regeneration companies and the creation of the Scottish Futures Trust, as well as a number of other innovative policies and initiatives.
Despite its good intentions, Labour’s raising of this important issue nonetheless smacks of hypocrisy, given that only two weeks ago Labour voted against £31 million of support for urban regeneration companies—£6 million more than had been planned in the draft budget. It is quite baffling that Labour has lodged a motion that
“recognises the importance of continued support from the Scottish Government for regeneration initiatives”
when regeneration is all the more necessary following the shocking economic mismanagement and ineptitude of the previous Labour Government at Westminster. Alex Johnstone said that there was a 9.8 per cent reduction in output over the Labour Government’s 13 years in office, but he did not say that despite pledging in 1997 to protect manufacturing it oversaw a 37 per cent decline in manufacturing employment in the UK, which has hit my area of north Ayrshire, where manufacturing is of disproportionate importance, particularly hard. It is why the former Cabinet minister Alan Milburn said that, under Labour, the gap between rich and poor was the widest it had been for 80 years.
The fact that urban regeneration is of particular interest to me is due in no small part to the fact that one of the six URCs, Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company, covers my constituency. I was delighted by Mr Neil’s most welcome announcement. URCs are special purpose organisations that were established to attract and co-ordinate public and private sector investment around a shared set of objectives that have been decided on by investors and—most important—the communities themselves. Irvine Bay URC spans 14 miles of coastline and is one of the largest URCs. Its aim is to develop the built environment in Ardrossan and Saltcoats in my constituency and in Stevenston, Kilwinning and Irvine in Cunninghame South. That is an essential task, given that some of those towns contain large pockets of deprivation and have high levels of unemployment and ill health. Irvine Bay URC is working to engineer new investment and sustainable employment, to boost tourism and to improve the social conditions in the area.
I have witnessed at first hand—on at least two occasions with the minister—the important work that the company has undertaken during its relatively short existence, and I am excited to see its projects coming to fruition. They range from small projects such as the renovation of several listed buildings that have been turned into art galleries and restaurants to bigger projects such as an 8,000ft2 business centre in Stevenston, the Ardrossan marina, which will create some 400 jobs and attract £70 million of investment, and several large-scale town centre regeneration projects. Those new retail and leisure facilities will also create jobs and give people a reason to come to that part of Ayrshire to spend money and to enjoy what is on offer. In addition, the creation of 300 construction jobs, which will include 31 trainee positions, and the building of a hotel will provide a significant boost. There are many good things to say about what is happening at Irvine Bay. Of course, such developments not only benefit communities but provide support for ancillary industries such as construction, as I have mentioned.
Further to the Scottish Government’s commitment to URCs, the national housing trust initiative will also support regeneration. The aim of that scheme is to deliver, through an innovative high-value-for-money solution, thousands of houses that are suitable for mid-market rent in areas where there is a high demand for such housing. Homes that are brought into the scheme will be funded jointly by participating councils and developers, and the Scottish Government is offering councils a guarantee to ensure that they can repay any money that they borrow to fund the scheme. It will keep people in jobs, particularly in the construction industry, by allowing house builders to kick-start construction on stalled housing sites that in many cases would otherwise remain mothballed. This innovative scheme is being taken forward by the Scottish Futures Trust, which the SNP Government set up and which Labour intends to scrap in the unlikely event of its forming the next Administration.
The SNP has many other initiatives and policies. For example, in the recent strategy document “Homes Fit for the 21st Century”, we set out plans to allow councils to increase the rate of council tax that they charge on long-term empty properties. There are 25,000 such properties in Scotland and it makes no sense for a council tax rate of 50 per cent to be levied on them. Our policy would not only discourage leaving homes empty but raise £130 million for councils, which is enough money to deliver 800 new homes a year and to support 1,500 construction jobs.
Local communities are often best placed to decide how their area should be regenerated, so the SNP has bold plans to assist and empower local communities through our proposed community empowerment and renewal bill, which will enable community purchase of underused and unused public sector assets and enable communities to regenerate dormant land and vacant or derelict buildings in their area. Granting local people such powers and assistance can often provide the spark for wider-ranging regeneration and investment.
Does the member agree that improving transport infrastructure is crucial to regeneration in an area? Will he join me in calling for a budget and a timescale to be set for the upgrading of the Kilwinning to Glasgow bypass?
On Tuesday—unlike the member—I was at a meeting with North Ayrshire Council, Scottish Enterprise, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and the Minister for Housing and Communities at which that very case was made. I have pressed for that since my election.
What we have heard from some Labour members—particularly Duncan McNeil who, sadly, is no longer present in the chamber—is a somewhat incoherent and blinkered view. We have had the bare-faced denial of Labour’s responsibility for the recession and the cuts that are having to be forced on Scotland by the UK Government according to the Tories’ philosophy. Laughably, we have even had criticism of how money is distributed to local authorities, despite the fact that the SNP uses the same distribution formula that the Labour Party used when it was in power.
Unfortunately, time prevents me from talking about the coalfields community but, along with Mr Neil and Mr Stevenson, I have family who worked in the coal mines; my paternal grandfather was a miner from Leven.
10:34
This morning, we have heard a broad range of activities being classed as regeneration activities. Perhaps one of the issues that we face is the fact that regeneration means different things to different people. Obviously it means the regeneration of the physical infrastructure, which is what the town centre regeneration fund was aimed at helping. I welcome Patricia Ferguson’s support for that in her constituency although, if my memory serves me correctly, the Labour Party voted against that initiative. There we go.
Incidentally, I was struck by something else Patricia Ferguson said—I agree with it 100 per cent: just because the minister announces money twice does not mean that he can spend it twice. That makes me wonder why she was not a more effective adviser to the previous Prime Minister and chancellor than the current Labour leader.
I gently point out to the member that money to regenerate our town centres was in our last manifesto.
It might well have been in Labour’s manifesto, but it did not vote for the initiative when it had the opportunity to do so in Parliament. Labour will presumably be judged by what it does, not what it promises. We all know that a promise from the Labour Party is not worth a great deal.
Regeneration is more about jobs than about anything else. Some regeneration initiatives aim to tackle health issues arising out of or linked to deprivation, and climate change initiatives are also increasingly being tagged on to regeneration, but at the absolute core it is jobs that sustain communities and lead regeneration.
Some points have been made today about how we create jobs and help people with the skills and abilities to access employment. There is a variety of threads there. If people are leaving school without the skills that they need to fit into the employment market, we have a serious problem in some of our schools. I can understand that the Government must be able to ensure that there is adequate support in place for people who might have been in one industry for a large part of their lives and now have to face redundancy, retraining and a shift in employment. When Alex Johnstone made a point about labour force mobility there was a collective intake of breath from Labour members, but we should not discount the idea so rapidly. Is it not better to get people to jobs in other areas, perhaps by upgrading transport links, than to leave them trapped in communities in which they do not have employment? Is it not better to have people in work than out of work?
We should also look at business mobility. Increasingly, new jobs do not depend on a geographical link to a particular part of the country. Many service industries can be set up in any part of the country, provided they have a skilled workforce and the appropriate infrastructure, particularly in communications.
Does the member recognise that for some of our fragile communities across Scotland, one of the problems is depopulation? My family had to leave where they lived to get work. That had consequences for them, but there were also consequences for the people they left behind; it was difficult to generate any work in those communities and to support the services that the remaining people required.
Yes, there are issues about depopulation, but if we look at any time during Scotland’s economic history we will find that the population shifted as new opportunities became available in different parts of the country. We cannot expect the Government to end that practice. I appreciate that when there is significant depopulation in an area there are issues for the people who are left behind and for the encouragement of job creation in those local areas, but the idea that the Government can wish those issues away is naive.
Jeremy Purvis mentioned the incentives that the new UK Government is introducing on national insurance. That is one of the positive things that can be done to allow businesses to create jobs in local areas, which is presumably what we should be aiming to do. More than anything else, it is economic growth that will regenerate communities.
We had 16 years of uninterrupted economic growth between 1992 and 2008, before we got to the recession. If, after 16 years, areas still do not achieve the regeneration that is sought, do we say that the regeneration initiatives have failed or that we tried the wrong things? Or do we need to take a harder look at whether it is possible to regenerate to the full extent that we wish, even when we are living in the most benign of economic circumstances? We have to have economic circumstances that lead to such communities being sustainable in good times and bad. That is when infrastructure and transport links have a real part to play.
On the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, John Park made a valid point about the levering in of finance. We should be looking at that more generally, and some of the issues that the Government is looking at, such as JESSICA funding, which aims to lever in funding, are very valuable. We have to look at recycling funding and moving from a culture of grants to one of loans and equity to get more for our money. As with everything else, we have to consider funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust on its merits. It must be about what helps to create jobs. The future jobs fund, which the Labour Party was promoting, cost around £6,000 or £7,000 per job created. The regional selective assistance grants cost about £10,000 per job created. We need to have a debate about how we can most effectively sustain jobs.
Surely there is an interdependence between the approach that is taken at the UK level on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the Scottish Government’s approach. Does Derek Brownlee agree that it would be beneficial for us to know exactly what his party is planning to do at the UK level so that we can go forward together? We are interdependent: we share ideas and aspirations for what we can deliver for those communities.
I am always keen for the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work well together. I cannot add anything to what Alex Johnstone said, which is that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in England has said that it will not be in a position to make any announcement on its funding. Of course we must try and work together to leverage in funding, but we must look at funding for CRT on its merits compared with other initiatives. That is one of my key points.
I note in passing that one of the most intriguing things that I heard in today’s debate was Alex Neil’s reference to his “reign”. I know that he has been criticised of late as misdescribing his position, but I did not realise that he had been elevated to monarch.
10:41
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this morning’s Labour Party debate on regeneration.
I start by congratulating the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and supporting it and the work that it does. There is a strong mining heritage in Rutherglen and Cambuslang in the area that I represent, particularly in Cambuslang. A lot of strong figures emerged from there, including the former vice president of the National Union of Mineworkers, Mick McGahey, who worked at the Gateside pit close to where I grew up in Halfway.
I was reminded of the success of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust last year when I spoke at a conference in the Blantyre area, which neighbours the constituency that I represent. Blantyre is another strong mining community and it is important to recognise the work in the mines and the events that shaped such communities. In 1877, Blantyre had a pit disaster in which almost 200 people died. It brought the community together, and we can still see that in the Blantyre community today. It is important to support the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the funding that it makes available in areas such as Blantyre because we have to have a sense of community and of people sticking together. That is not only important for the generation of employment, it is important to help to reduce crime and to contribute to the well being of the area.
There is a strong industrial heritage in the area that I represent. The mines are long gone, although there is still a steel works. The strong manufacturing base that existed in Cambuslang and Rutherglen was attacked and undermined at the advent of the Thatcher Government in 1979, which pursued the policy of worshipping at the altar of Milton Friedman and controlling the money supply rather than supporting communities such as Cambuslang and Rutherglen. Many still remember when the steel works were closed, and there are people who worked there who never worked again. That is the legacy of the Thatcher years. Sadly, as John Park pointed out in his speech, there are generations of people who have not worked since. That gives us problems with life expectancy, health and the fabric of the area.
I take the member’s point about the Thatcher Government, but there were 13 years of Labour government after that, at the end of which the level of unemployment in Scotland was much higher than it had been at any point in the previous few years.
As Mr Brownlee pointed out, we had unprecedented economic growth until 2008, and we had unprecedented levels of access to higher education. In the community that I represent, that has meant that many people who grew up in the schemes in the 1970s have graduated to carrying out professional, stable jobs, and they are able to make a positive contribution to the economy as a result of the positive impact of a Labour Government.
Jeremy Purvis rose—
I am sorry, but I must make progress.
The challenge for policy makers across the chamber is how to promote jobs and generate economic growth. The role of urban regeneration companies is vital. Frank McAveety spoke about the positive work that Clyde Gateway carries out. It is not just a matter of its work, but of what surrounds it. The Commonwealth games are coming up in 2014, and the M74 motorway is due for completion later this year. Those developments are very important, but we need the funding for Clyde Gateway to clear up the areas concerned and support economic growth.
I obviously welcome the fact that the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise have restored funding levels by not making the cuts that the Government proposed at the start of the budget process. Alex Neil and Stuart McMillan—who has left the chamber—should not kid us on. What kind of economic vision do they have if the budget process starts with a proposal for 46 per cent cuts to Clyde Gateway and 71 per cent cuts for the urban regeneration company in Greenock? That is a Government that is devoid of economic vision. No wonder the First Minister wrote a memo last month—which was leaked to all heads of department—that sought, within 24 hours, an economic policy for the next four years. No wonder—
What about Labour’s cuts?
During the budget debate, Kenneth Gibson described the Glasgow airport rail link project as a white elephant. It would create 1,200 jobs and fit in with and support the Commonwealth games development. That shows how deficient the economic vision of the SNP is.
People such as Derek Brownlee have given up on many communities. He thinks that we have pumped enough money in and that the funding pipeline should be cut off. The SNP Government is deficient in terms of its economic vision. The Labour Party has lodged the motion we are debating this morning and provided the time to support and defend our communities and to continue to support jobs and economic growth.
10:48
This is not the first regeneration debate in which I have taken part, but it is an issue to which we will inevitably and rightly return as long as parts of Scotland remain in need of improvement. There can be few MSPs who cannot think of parts of the area that they represent that could not benefit from being given a new lease of life through regeneration.
I am puzzled as to what Helen Eadie has done to her party to have her members’ business debate this evening usurped this morning, especially as I think that this is one of only two Labour debating mornings remaining this session. Perhaps it is because of a lack of vision and not having anything to say—that is the inevitable conclusion.
Coalfield regeneration is just one of many sorts of regeneration scheme. Like many members, I have seen the positive impact that the Scottish Government’s town centre regeneration fund has had in areas that I represent and the benefits that communities have enjoyed as a result. There are further successful regeneration projects that we can look forward to. The retail rocks project in Torry in Aberdeen, which is funded from the town centre regeneration fund, will help to create new businesses in the area. The project underlines the importance of successful small businesses in regenerating an area and makes Labour’s consistent failure to support the small business bonus scheme even more ill judged.
Also in Torry, it was announced earlier this year that the disused Bon Accord drinks factory could be in line for residential redevelopment, bringing much needed construction jobs to the city and creating commercial space and a more pleasant environment. Those steps to regenerate part of Aberdeen are important in their own right, but they are also a signal of intent to make real improvements in the city.
Aberdeen is examining the tax incremental funding model for providing finance for improvements through a number of projects in the city, funding growth through growth. The system has worked well in the United States and it certainly has potential in Scotland. Aside from the much publicised Union Terrace gardens, this funding mechanism is also being considered for extending the Aberdeen art gallery, regenerating Upper Denburn, preparing for the destruction and redevelopment of St Nicholas house and creating high-quality pedestrian routes through key city centre locations. It is a mechanism that can do a lot of good if it is successfully used to fund the right projects, and I know that people in various areas across Scotland will be watching what Aberdeen, and indeed Edinburgh, do with that funding model.
Housing is a key area that needs to be at the heart of a successful regeneration strategy. Abandoned properties can suck the life out of areas and accelerate the decline of a previously successful community. When an area is full of empty homes, it is little wonder that some residents take little pride in their community, do not feel safe in the area and actively seek to relocate. That is why the SNP’s desire to give councils the power to increase council tax on empty properties to fund the construction of new house building is so important. That measure would discourage properties going unused and help to create more modern homes in areas that badly need them.
The construction of new homes can have a real transformative effect on a community, returning it to a place where residents want to live. That is what makes the Scottish Government’s record of council house construction so important. More council houses were constructed last year than in the previous 20 years.
Does the member regret the fact that the new building of housing association houses fell by 1,000 last year?
In my view it does not matter who builds them—and that did not happen anyway. The 1,000 new council houses built by the SNP represent positive action happening. They do not have to be built by housing associations—and in fact that number did not fall. The SNP is committed to having another 5,000 built over the next parliamentary session. Communities are gaining a new lease of life and people’s quality of life is immeasurably improved after four years of this Government. The construction of new homes is just as important a form of regeneration as upgrading a town centre or providing new opportunities.
Whoever provides it—it has to be community led through community planning partnerships and the community has to be fully involved—successful regeneration can bring vibrancy back to local communities and improve quality of life and opportunities. It brings money back to areas and regenerates pride in the local community. In these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever that the right approach to regeneration is in place and that we ensure that every penny is spent to maximum effect.
10:54
I apologise to Jeremy Purvis for my earlier comments—I had Jim Tolson in mind. I am surprised and a little bit angry that Jim Tolson has not been in the chamber this morning for such an important debate for mining villages, the vast majority of which he represents.
For the member’s information, Mr Tolson is currently engaged in a meeting with the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, dealing with transport issues that are relevant to his constituency. The member’s comment was completely unnecessary.
I had a meeting arranged for this morning with Alex Neil, who has left the chamber for the moment, but I am here because this is such an important debate. The issue is very important to both the Labour Party and people throughout Scotland.
I also take great exception to the point that Maureen Watt made. I am at the heart of discussions with colleagues in the Labour Party on this important matter. We thought that the issue was so important that it needed a good airing this morning, which is why we are getting two opportunities to discuss it today.
Jeremy Purvis talked about the work on the matter being ad hoc. I am the temporary chair of the industrial communities alliance and, week in, week out, I write to ministers on behalf of the alliance. I had to reschedule my meeting with the minister this morning, although my colleagues are meeting Jim Mather, who is substituting for him.
Alex Neil, who is not in the chamber to hear this point, talked about the JESSICA fund. That is not a grant fund; it is a loan fund, it is European money and it is very different from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust money. The minister has also been tardy in making any announcement on European social funding and European regional development funding for communities across Scotland. It is to his shame that that work is not being given more serious prominence.
I am delighted to be taking part in the debate. In my book, one of the finest things that the Labour Government did in recent years was establish the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in 1999 to ensure that the need for jobs for ex-miners was recognised. The then coalfield communities campaign—now the industrial communities alliance—was a driving force in securing funding from the Labour Government to create the CRT, which it recognised as being paramount to the need of the towns and villages to have regeneration initiatives.
The minister appears to be very amused by the discussion that we are having—he is having a conversation with his colleague rather than listening to the debate—but I take the matter seriously.
The map shows that the coalfield areas are relatively small. In developing the rules for the CRT, the benchmark was the situation in 1981: only communities in which 10 per cent of the population worked in the pits in 1981 are eligible for funding. We are, therefore, talking about only a small amount of money, but the Government is going to slash it. The minister proposes a 68 per cent cut in the funding for those communities.
What has the member got to say about her big pal Gordon Brown cheating 2,000 Scottish miners out of their compensation for pneumoconiosis?
Gordon Brown worked very closely with Thompsons Solicitors in Glasgow—a firm that is renowned for its work in helping to secure compensation for miners. In response to a question from one of Alex Neil’s SNP colleagues in the Westminster Parliament, we were told that more than £6 billion was claimed in compensation for miners under the previous Labour Government. The minister should not try to lecture us on that.
I abhor the minister’s attempts to cut the funding to the extent that he is going to cut it. He proposes to cut the funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust by 68 per cent, and he should be ashamed of himself for that. Today, more than ever, the funding is crucial to former mining towns and villages, especially in the wake of the reductions in European social funding and European regional development funding. More than £10 million has been invested in a huge range of social regeneration activities throughout Scotland, all targeted at revitalising communities that are still suffering from the devastating effects of colliery closures. The minister faces a huge embarrassment because he does not know what the Westminster Government is going to do in terms of funding the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. If an announcement is made of massive funding for the CRT in the coming weeks but, in the meantime, he has been talking about cutting its funding colossally, that will embarrass him completely.
One of the main aims of the CRT in Scotland is to unlock the huge potential of those who live and work in former mining towns. Around 35,000 people have benefited from the support of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. More than 200 people have been helped into work; more than 400 people have been helped to gain new qualifications; more than 80 new jobs have been created; and 800 volunteers and 40 new social enterprises have been funded. Those projects are vital and require specialist skills—not the kind of skills that JESSICA loan funding can be used to develop, but skills that are fed by the essential grant funding that is available from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Those skills have been developed in organisations such as West Fife Enterprise, which Jim Mather promised to visit. I do not know what has happened to that promise; it has disappeared like snow off a dyke. That is symptomatic of the promises that we get from the SNP Government regarding its commitment to help former coal-mining communities.
The minister has not announced any funding for Fife today, so we are going to see a massive cut in the Coalfields Regeneration Trust money in Fife and that is not good enough. On behalf of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, I ask the minister to make a commitment to restore full funding to the trust in the years ahead and into the foreseeable future. I hope that he will at least have the decency to recognise the hard work and the special, innovative commitment that we have seen from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.
11:01
Given that my grandfather was killed in the pits and my father was invalided out of the pits after an accident, it is no surprise that I will concentrate my remarks on the coalfield communities in Fife. Those communities were devastated by pit closures under both Tory and Labour Governments. It is important to remember that, when the Tories came to power in 1979, there were no longer any pits in Kinglassie, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly, Methil, Bowhill, Kelty, Ballingry, Crosshill, Lumphinnans and Cardenden—Labour had already closed them down.
I welcome the support that has been given to Methil by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the significant financial support that has been given by the Scottish Government to the Fife energy park through regional selective assistance and grant from Scottish Enterprise. That is the big hope in a generation for Methil, and that kind of investment in regeneration will improve our communities.
On Monday, I attended a meeting of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and local people in the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation club in Glenrothes. The community had had grant application after grant application to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust turned down over the years, and the purpose of the meeting was to find out why Glenrothes was not a coalfield area. The explanation was that the 1999 map of coalfield areas that was drawn up by the UK Government was based on a research study that highlighted areas where, in 1981, more than 10 per cent of the population were miners. That was then overlaid with areas of multiple deprivation. Those of us present were astonished to find out that Glenrothes—which was created as a new town in 1948 to service the ill-fated Glenrothes pit—had never been on the original map. So, year after year, the money that has been made available to other communities has not been made available to Glenrothes.
By any definition, Glenrothes or at least part of it—especially the older areas of Woodside and Auchmuty—must be a coalfield community; yet, since 1999, it has not received a penny because it has never been designated as a coalfield community. The name of the venue for that meeting—the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—gives a clue as to the importance of coal mining to Glenrothes. It is beyond belief that, since 1999, the UK Government has not regarded Glenrothes as a coalfield community. I would be grateful if the minister would give an undertaking that he will work with the UK Government to ensure that there is a fairer acknowledgement of what a coalfield community is and that part of Glenrothes will be included in that.
Will the member work with the Labour Party to try to persuade the minister that it would be a good idea to sustain the funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and to not only restore what was cut this year, but guarantee funding for the next two years?
What I will say is that, with regard to Glenrothes, which is clearly a coalfield community but which has had no access to any of that money over the years, what is important is that people in the communities that I represent have an opportunity to get some of the grant money that is available.
Many people have said today that this debate is about people. That is true. I have some respect for John Park, but not when he uses people in the coalfield communities that he represents as an excuse for making political points. My respect for him is further diminished by his utter failure, which is shared by every Labour MSP in the chamber, to condemn the shameful treatment by the Labour Government of our ex-miners and their families. Some 2,000 miners in Scotland died while they were waiting for compensation that they were entitled to, while the Labour Government went to court to try to stop the payments. More than 8,000 miners in the UK waited more than 10 years for a settlement. Helen Eadie says that she is proud of that record, but it is a record that no person could be proud of. In addition to that, in order to fund some of the compensation, the Labour Government, like the Tories before it, pinched the miners’ pension money—the money that the miners had put into their own pension fund.
Of the miners who died while waiting for compensation, 135 were in my constituency of Central Fife—I would have thought that Mr Park would have been interested in this, but I see that he is not—and 179 were in Gordon Brown’s constituency, both of which areas John Park represents as a regional MSP. That betrayal of the coalfield communities is a disgrace. By its silence, Labour condemns itself.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you give guidance to those members who are present about the rules about the attendance, during the winding-up speeches, of members who have participated in the debate? I ask that with regard to the prolonged and continuing absence of Mr Frank McAveety, who spoke earlier.
Mr McAveety has already given me his apologies. That is a procedural matter.
11:07
Having done a rough calculation, I think that it is 69 days—
Seventy-one.
I accept Duncan McNeil’s correction. For those who are not aware of what we are talking about—I am sure that most members are—that is the time until the election. It therefore comes as no great surprise to me or to anyone else that, during the course of the debate, we have heard a series of re-election speeches from members of all parties, not excluding the minister, who I see is chiding me for suggesting that that is the case.
As members across the chamber have said, the regeneration of our coalfield communities is an important issue. During the debate, there has been a worrying trend towards selective amnesia. As a regional member who represents the Lanarkshire area, I know that the change of administration in Falkirk Council—it is now a Labour-led council—has caused a stutter in relation to the Falkirk Gateway regeneration project. Further, the Ravenscraig development has been stalled for some time, partly due to intransigence on the part of the Government and partly due to intransigence on the part of the local Labour administration—I am even-handed in my criticism, as I am sure that the minister acknowledges.
There is a high degree of hypocrisy among Labour members. For the most part, over the past 30 years, the direction of funding in relation to the regeneration of all the coal-mining areas has been channelled in one way or another through the local authorities of those areas—development agencies notwithstanding—and the fact is that most of those areas have been in the control of the Labour Party. Therefore, for Labour members to sit here, 69 or 71 days away from an election, beating their breasts about the inadequacy of regeneration is, quite frankly, laughable.
Although he was speaking with some degree of self interest with regard to his own constituency matters—which is understandable, as it is with us all—Jeremy Purvis made a balanced observation in relation to the way in which regeneration is organised. He highlighted a disconnect in relation to the number of organisations in this area. The document “Mechanisms for Preparation of Strategies for Industrial Communities” lists 14 organisations. That is neither efficient nor effective. Mr Purvis’s point in relation to how we focus the organisation of the regeneration effort was perfectly reasonable with regard to the regional development banks and the role of the colleges. At the moment, a shotgun approach is being taken, which appears not to be working.
Patricia Ferguson made relevant observations about the work that is being done in Maryhill around the canal basin and on the burgh halls—I look forward to seeing those new stained glass windows being installed.
As I said, some of the contributions have been remarkably short on long-term memory. Mr McAveety—when he was here—referred to the reorganisation of Glasgow. I was employed in Glasgow during the late 1970s and early 1980s and I have to say that, in many instances, public funding and regional support grants became a job creation scheme for people who were associated with the Labour Party. Many organisations came and went, were regenerated, died again and were reincarnated like phoenixes from the ashes—I am thinking of GEAR, Glasgow Development Agency, Glasgow Opportunities and so on. They all purported to solve the problems that our city had at that time and none of them was successful.
When I was a Glasgow councillor, we were advised that £500 million had been spent under the Conservative Government on attempts to regenerate Glasgow, yet the postcode areas that were the poorest before the regeneration money was spent were still the poorest afterwards. I asked the council—whose leader was Mr McAveety—for a report on which regeneration activities were successful and which were unsuccessful, so that we did not repeat the mistakes of the past. A decade later, I do not think that that report has been produced.
I can make no comment on that, given that, at that time, I was looking at the situation from the perspective of someone who was involved in a commercial organisation that was seeking to regenerate bits of the east end of Glasgow. I know the challenges that that organisation faced because of the extent to which there was a closed shop—I use that term advisedly—with regard to who got access to the funds.
This morning’s debate is about the motion that has been lodged, and we would like some clarity about the Liberal Democrats’ position. Do they support the further funding of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust?
I advise you to watch your time.
I will be brief. As I think was clear from Jeremy Purvis’s opening remarks, we support the proposal.
11:14
Robert Burns famously came up with a line in which he said that he aspired to a point at which
“Man to Man the warld o’er,
shall brothers be”.
Many of us in this chamber have been working in Scotland for many years, and we know that although there are many differences in attitude, outlook and philosophy in Scotland, we all manage to find something in common. The sad thing about this debate is that I have managed to find, in what I have heard from the Labour Party, something that either I do not understand or, if I understand it, I do not like. Scotland certainly has economic and social troubles, but there are different communities and different levels of opportunity throughout the country. Scotland is not plagued by unemployment and social degradation; it has wealthy and less wealthy areas and it has successful and less successful areas.
What I learned today came from the sharp intake of breath from the Labour benches when I mentioned workforce mobility in my opening speech—yet Scotland has been famous for workforce mobility. Scotland has exported its talented people all over the world and when the country has had industrial success it has demonstrated that it brings in people from all over the world. In large areas of Scotland, in the east, the north-east and parts of the north, where there is economic growth, jobs are all too often filled by people who have come here from Poland and the Baltic states—and welcome they are, too, because our economy depends on them.
Why, then, is there such reluctance in some areas of Scotland to look at the opportunities that exist in Scotland to take our talented and able young people into long-term employment?
Will the member give way?
I must carry on.
We have been considering the coalfields. For many reasons, of which some might be the fault of previous Governments and others are the result of the economic situation in which we find ourselves, a large number of towns and villages with substantial populations have high unemployment, because there has not been success in attracting new jobs to those areas.
Members of all parties agree that in many cases the way to deal with the problem is by retraining and educating people and creating the skilled workforce that we need for the 21st century. However, the Labour Party appears to be fundamentally opposed to the idea that people should take jobs outside their communities.
Will the member give way?
Will the member please let me develop my argument?
Some of us want Scotland to succeed, with vibrant, well-trained young Scottish people entering jobs in the Scottish economy. Some of us regard the priority as being to keep those young people where they are.
The member is misrepresenting the position of Labour members. In my opening speech I said that it is about providing skills for young people so that they can move into opportunities, regardless of where they are. It is about investing in young people.
If I am misrepresenting the position of Labour members, I apologise, but the message that I have taken from more than one speech is that the Labour Party wants to set the protection of some communities above opportunities for the young people who have been born and raised in those communities. What I hear is a Labour Party that would prefer to breed the culture of dependency and continue the client economy in its heartlands, rather than provide the opportunities that could be afforded to people in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I must carry on.
I apologise again, because I know that work is needed in many communities throughout Scotland. I know that regeneration is important in many communities that have suffered enormous deprivation. However, it is not just about structure or building houses; it is about training for employment and putting young people into work.
During the dark days of the 1980s, when unemployment was high, there was a slogan: let us train the workers without jobs to do the jobs without workers. It was often the butt of jokes, because if there is a surplus of blacksmiths and a shortage of brain surgeons—well, we do not want to go there. In Scotland we have the opportunity to train the workers without jobs to do the jobs without workers, but we must do all that we can to ensure that the workers without jobs can go where the jobs are. Scotland can provide enormous opportunity for our young people, but it is not just about retraining; it is about ensuring that we put young people where the jobs are. Let us not close our minds to that opportunity.
11:20
The debate has been fairly heated, but it has not been bad, in many respects, and some light has been shed, in some speeches.
I pick up on the point that I think that Frank McAveety first made, on the importance of tackling youth unemployment. Irrespective of the communities that we are dealing with, some of which we would not describe as deprived, levels of youth unemployment are far too high, not only in Scotland but throughout the UK.
That is why I emphasise the high priority that the Scottish Government has given to dealing with youth unemployment, within our remit and the resources that are available to us. As I said, John Swinney announced 25,000 modern apprenticeships for next year, 7,000 flexible training opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, an extra 1,200 college places and an additional £15 million for college bursaries. We are providing more than 40,000 training opportunities, with a further 34,500 new opportunities committed for 2011-12.
On top of that, 86.8 per cent of the young people who left school in the academic year 2009-10 were in a positive destination approximately three months after the end of the academic year, which is the highest-ever proportion of positive destinations. That is especially significant in the challenging circumstances. The proportion of school leavers who enter further or higher education approximately three months after the end of the academic year has risen from 56 per cent in 2007-08 to 62.8 per cent in 2009-10. That is also a record high.
The minister knows that apprenticeships are close to my heart. There was an increase in apprenticeships last year and an increase is proposed this year. Will the minister say how many of the new apprenticeship places will be for school leavers and young people under 24?
The precise breakdown is to be agreed, but we will send John Park the details when that has happened.
I have set out what the Government has done, but I do not think that it is enough. If additional resources were available to us we would do even more. I hope that Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will provide additional resources specifically to tackle youth unemployment in the budget on 23 March.
Will the minister give way?
I am afraid that I must move on.
Some comments about URCs have not been entirely accurate. We have had a positive discussion with the chair and chief executive of the board of Riverside Inverclyde. One reason why the company’s budget is slightly lower than that of other URCs is that the company has advanced spending on projects this year. That partly explains the scale of the year-on-year change in its budget. We must take such matters into consideration, rather than simply look at the crude figures. I have read scaremongering stories in local newspapers about the James Watt dock development and the Greenock Arts Guild theatre, none of which has been accurate.
We are doing an enormous amount with the Clyde Gateway project in the east end of Glasgow, not just in relation to the core role of the URC but to secure the legacy from the Commonwealth games in 2014. Unprecedented investment is going into that part of Glasgow.
We should not make the mistake of equating the core budgets of URCs or any other development agency, including the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, with the total investment in the areas that they cover. As John Park said, a great advantage of such organisations is that they have the capability to leverage in additional money. Indeed, the money that they leverage in often far exceeds the organisation’s core budget. That is why it has been essential to maintain budgets.
That is obviously testament to the fantastic work of the local constituency MSP in generating that level of investment in the east end of Glasgow. The important question that I raised in my nuanced contribution was whether that can continue. Robert Crawford’s letter to the Government and Scottish Enterprise was about maintaining that level of commitment to provide the opportunity for the private sector investment that the minister so understandably comments on.
Those decisions will be taken by the new Government, because of the agreement throughout the chamber that whoever is elected on 5 May will prepare a three-year spending programme from next year onwards. However, I anticipate our making that kind of decision to show our continuing commitment to the area.
I say to Patricia Ferguson that through the transformational regeneration area approach in Glasgow, including Maryhill, we have agreed substantial investment in housing and other matters, and the framework agreements are now in place. Maryhill, along with Laurieston and Gallowgate, has been picked as one of the three early action priority areas for investment. The Scottish ministers have agreed to waive the disposal clawback agreement for all TRAs, allowing any receipts generated through private sector activity to be recycled into the regeneration programme across all eight areas.
So, if we look at the investment in the town centre regeneration fund, the Glasgow Housing Association, the other budgets in housing in Glasgow and all the other budgets under John Swinney’s control, we can see that we are making massive investment in the city of Glasgow and it is right that we should do so.
Similarly, in the coalfield areas, if we add up the investment in the communities, we see that it is at an unprecedented level.
One of the other points that I want to emphasise—I forget who made it—is that if we are to be successful in regeneration, the role of community empowerment is critical. The community must be actively involved in the decision making, not as consultees but as decision makers.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not have time, unfortunately.
You have time if you wish.
Right. I will take the intervention.
Will the minister explain to me how my people in my constituency will benefit from the JESSICA fund, which is a loan fund, in the way that he describes?
They will benefit enormously, because it will bring about investment and will leverage additional funds from Europe and elsewhere into that area. I am happy to explain that in more detail when I have more time—such as in the member’s debate tonight.
There is a real dilemma at the heart of Labour’s policy. Irrespective of what the debate is, Labour demands that we keep budgets as they are or increase them—whether in relation to the housing association grant, the total amount spent on housing, the amount spent on the CRT or on a whole panoply of other organisations and programmes—but it has not said how it will fund all that expenditure, given that it will face the same cuts from Westminster that this Government faces.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I have too much to say.
Those cuts have totalled more than £2 billion in real terms over this year and next year. If Labour is committed to all the expenditure that it has listed—we have counted at least £1.7 billion additional expenditure—it has to tell us what it will cut. Of course, the secret is that Labour has said that it will not protect the health budget, so the only conclusion that one can reach about the core of Labour’s financial policy is that it will strip the health service of badly needed capital and staffing investment in order to pay for its own pet projects. In other words, Labour’s core strategy is to close accident and emergency units such as Monklands and use that money for GARL and other projects for which the business case is very weak indeed.
Minister, can you get back on to the subject please?
This is very relevant to the subject, Presiding Officer.
It had better be.
It is about how the money is spent and where one gets it to spend in all these areas.
My officials have had a very constructive dialogue with the CRT. We await its proposal on how it can continue to have an impact in the coalfield areas in future. We have told it that, like everybody else, we need to look at how we can make money go further. I am very keen to ensure that the trust maintains the essential capacity and capability so that it can continue to invest in coalfield communities and, more important, focus that investment on job-creating activity, which is what will ensure the economic survival of those areas. That is our policy. We will support the trust, but we want it to be even more effective in future, to leverage even more investment into the coalfield areas and to give priority to job creation.
11:30
For the avoidance of doubt, the minister is making a cut of 68 per cent, guaranteeing one year’s money and then asking the CRT how it will spend that money—that is the level he is operating at. He is not sustaining the funding that was there before; he is asking the trust to continue to contribute with a cut of 68 per cent, while taking the ludicrous position of not even telling the trust what it will have for the two subsequent years. People will judge his remarks on that basis.
This is an important debate. People have asked, at a basic level, what the point of the debate is. First, it appears to have secured something of a U-turn on the urban regeneration companies, although with the SNP one always has to read the small print later. However, the ludicrous, economically illiterate decision to cut the funding might have been stayed.
The debate has also exposed the reality of the SNP’s attitude towards and views on the coal-mining communities, which we all know suffered so much in the past. What happened to the coal-mining communities and industry in Scotland is totemic; it is a symbol of what Thatcher and her cronies did to Scotland. It is no surprise that today’s Daily Record says of the minister’s decision:
“It’s Like Thatcher All Over Again”.
I have the statistics from the National Coal Board Scottish area: 52 pits closed under Wilson and Callaghan, which is more than four times the number that closed under Thatcher. Should Johann Lamont not be a little more contrite about the impact that the Labour Party in government had on the mining communities?
The Conservatives ought not to deny their own history. They wilfully destroyed mining communities, and the people of Scotland remember that.
Kenny Gibson talked about money being wasted in Glasgow. The SNP’s solution is simply to rip money out of Glasgow, rip off Glasgow and deny it the jobs that it requires.
We know that there is a need for co-ordination on regeneration. I would be interested to know whether there is currently a role for the Scottish centre for regeneration in the Scottish Government, because it is critical that there is co-ordination on these issues and that local people are involved in decisions on regeneration. There are concerns about how community planning is being rolled forward and how people are engaged.
Alex Johnstone talked about mobility. He basically said that the problems caused by economic decisions in the 1980s were the fault of the people in the communities who suffered for them; he blamed those people for not being willing to move. That is clearly nonsense. The CRT recognises that if we skill people, they might choose to go elsewhere, but if they are not skilled and the communities are not regenerated, we have not just people who are not working; we have all the social consequences of that, too.
It is disappointing that Alex Neil has chosen to collude with the Conservatives’ view. Particularly in his opening speech, he settled for debating points rather than action. The immutable law of the minister is that the louder he is, the dodgier ground he is on.
It is frustrating that he talks on the one hand about spending a fortune of money and on the other hand about needing to cut this little bit of money to the CRT. What is the logic in that? I am at a loss to understand why, for the want of £1.5 million a year, he would choose to cut the feet from an organisation that has a proven record. To be charitable to Alex Neil, it might simply be that he has not won the argument with his Cabinet colleagues.
I get depressed when the SNP colludes with the Tories, in particular, in setting out the self-serving analysis that the country’s current deficit has been caused by spending too much money on public services. Such collusion might serve the nationalists’ party interest in the short term but the problem is that the Tories’ solution—to slash public spending—will leave our communities abandoned. We know that the Tories destroyed the mining communities in the 1980s; Alex Johnstone himself talked about the dark days of the 1980s, as if his party had nothing to do with them. We remember how at that time the Tories said that unemployment was a price worth paying. Nothing has changed. Those communities will now have to suffer disproportionately from decisions made at UK level with the collusion of the SNP, which will not say that it was not public spending that caused the problem.
Regeneration is not just about physical regeneration or doing good things for people; it is about supporting people to achieve their potential. The nature of the communities that are being regenerated is critical and any approach must be shaped by the different issues that arise in each of the different communities. That is why the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s distinct nature is important. After all, this is not just about creating jobs; it is also about giving people the skills to access those jobs and tackling any barriers that they might have.
In the foreword to “Building a Sustainable Future”, Alex Neil says:
“Achieving equality of place and people are central aims of this Government’s Economic Strategy.”
That should be the case, but under his watch Scottish Enterprise has been stripped of any such role. As a result, the importance of that aim is not recognised by one of the critical agencies. It is a classic example of a Scottish Government that is great on strategies and talking but which is neither delivering on the ground nor doing the heavy lifting that, as Duncan McNeil made clear, is important in government.
Moreover, this regeneration document is not even a consultation paper; it is a discussion paper. The irony is that in the past the SNP spent its life condemning key decisions—decisions supported by our colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party—that created jobs and built schools; now, instead of getting any action, we are left having a chat.
Of course, the regeneration of housing plays a critical role and the minister quite rightly referred to the wider role of housing associations and housing co-operatives. However, he continues to make a ludicrous and false division between housing associations and council housing and denies the critical role that housing associations and co-operatives can play in driving regeneration in local communities, demanding instead that councils listen to what the Government wants to do. I find it dispiriting that the collapse this year in housing association building will lead to a loss of energy in regeneration, and I am disturbed that housing associations across the country are now saying that they will not be building any more and, indeed, are stopping projects.
I merely point out that we are building twice as many housing association houses as Labour did when Johann Lamont was minister.
That is precisely my point. [Interruption.]
Order.
It is false and ludicrous to talk about how 73 more council houses were built last year while destroying the organisations that have driven community regeneration over the past 10 years.
There is an issue about supporting local government in regeneration, but rolling up all local government moneys on a per capita distribution basis leaves us unable to address the question of need in some of our poorest communities. It is not just about the formula; it is also about directing resources to particular areas with problems.
We know that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has been doing a lot of work. The arguments have been made about what it can deliver. It can, for example, reach parts of communities that the National Lottery was not able to reach. We do not know what is going to happen at a UK level but would it not be stunning if a Tory-led UK Government turned out to be more supportive of the trust than our self-styled miners’ friend in the SNP? Members should be in absolutely no doubt—however one looks at it, a 68 per cent cut will destroy huge amounts of the work that the trust wants to do. Why end something that is self-evidently working? Why provide only one year’s funding, which can only increase instability? Tricia Marwick seemed to be arguing that, given the definition of a coalfield area, we should end funding for it altogether—
You must close, please.
Instead, she should be arguing for that funding to be sustained. Then we can argue about the formula that is used.
If I could finish on this last point—
Very quickly, please.
Back in 2007, SNP back benchers lavished praise on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. If every one of them who spoke in favour of it then votes for it this afternoon, we will be able to sustain these communities with this funding.
I urge the chamber to support our motion.
That concludes this morning’s debate on regeneration.