Enterprise
We move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S1M-2946, in the name of Miss Annabel Goldie, on enterprise in Scotland. There are two amendments to the motion. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Miss Annabel Goldie to speak to and move the motion. You have 10 minutes, Miss Goldie.
The political process in Scotland has never been more visible, more accessible or more expensive. Never have more consultations, strategies and initiatives in glossy brochures been launched than have been launched by the Scottish Executive in the first 1,000 days of this Parliament. The people of Scotland should be dancing in the streets because of pent-up excitement, but they are not. The business community should be engaged in a corporate fandango of unfettered jubilation, but it is not.
The general sense of frustration and anger can be easily explained by such public relations nightmares as the new Parliament building and perverse priorities that place issues such as the banning of fox hunting and the smacking by parents of children ahead of creating a health service that treats ill people when they need treatment. There was also the recent embarrassment of MSPs voting on their salary increases. It is small wonder that the public are scunnered.
What about the business community? It can now engage in the political process with unprecedented ease. There is a Scottish Executive with 20 ministers and an Executive department that is devoted to enterprise that has legions of civil servants. There are 129 MSPs. There is an Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and there is the enterprise network, which is joined at the hip with the Executive. What is the measure of that wide spectrum of political access and what has been happening to the business community since 1999?
Business start-ups have, sadly, shown a decline. In 1999, there were approximately 19,000 new businesses, but with a declining graph. In 2000, there were approximately 17,000 new businesses. The 2001 figure is likely to be around 17,000 again. That measurement becomes starker when it is compared with 1977, when Scotland had 24,771 business start-ups. At best, we are declining; at worst, in real terms, we are de-enterprising and going backwards.
On Scottish economic growth, Scotland has had lower growth levels, historically, than the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the Scottish position has weakened even further in recent years. The Fraser of Allander Institute for Research on the Scottish Economy, in its quarterly economic commentary, projected a 7 per cent gross domestic product growth in Scotland for 2001 and a 1.2 per cent figure for 2002. A separate Government study suggested that Scotland has been more dramatically affected than the rest of Britain by the events of 11 September.
In an article in The Scotsman of 12 February 2002, Douglas McWilliams stated:
"Slow growth gradually corrodes a nation."
He went on to observe that Scotland might end up poorer than Greece.
Lurking below the surface of this bleak economic scene is more disquieting evidence of the disparity between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
I agree with Miss Goldie's analysis. However, does she agree that Scotland's slow growth and relative decline is not a function of the Labour period since 1997 but is in fact the history of post-war Scotland, which has declined relative to the rest of the UK throughout that period? Does she also agree that the opening words of her motion are an admission of the failure, throughout the whole post-war period in Scotland, of London Government?
I do not agree with Mr Wilson, whose views on the economy are a bit like his sartorial style: casual to the point of being random and demonstrably unco-ordinated.
Scotland saw significant losses in jobs and skills in 2001. Nearly 8,000 of those job losses were in the electronics sector. We also failed to cash in on 3,700 jobs that were cancelled within that sector. That gloomy chronicle is continuing, with depressing announcements of current job losses. That is not merely demoralising for the workers involved but an alarming expansion of the skills gap. That gap is worsening and employers increasingly despair about that further challenge.
This is a picture of a country that does not have an enterprise culture, whose Executive displays an inability to understand business, and in which the economy is stagnating. One must conclude that the Executive and the enterprise networks are not delivering for Scotland. For 2002-03, the enterprise and lifelong learning department's staff costs budget is more than £10 million for employing 338 people. There will also be ministerial and related costs. The enterprise network budget for 2002-03 is £465 million. One must ask what all those resources and that beaverish activity have been achieving.
Scottish Enterprise has been on a rationalisation mission, but the minister stated in a letter to me—dated 18 March 2002—that the projected head count for 2002-03 is estimated at 1,517 people. Still under review is how many of those will be permanent employees, fixed-term employees or contracted staff. That lack of specification is surprising.
Far less easy to understand, however, given what the enterprise networks have been presiding over, is why Scottish Enterprise thinks it necessary to increase the in-house resource for public relations, which in 2000-01 cost £1.62 million. Over the same period, external public relations services cost £1.4 million. If my arithmetic is correct, Scottish Enterprise has recently spent over £3 million on PR. I presume that it was explaining to anyone who was interested why business start-ups have declined, why Scottish economic growth is so much poorer than the rest of the UK, why job losses continue and why skills gaps are intensifying.
Is it any wonder that the business community does not have faith in the cluttered political scenery or does not believe in the atrophy of the enterprise network bureaucracy?
Will the member give way?
Forgive me for not doing so. I want to expand my point.
It was predictable that on 13 March 2002 the newspaper Business a.m. should have an article entitled: "Businesses demand answers from the Executive." Bear in mind that the Executive has had nearly three years to provide answers.
That brings us to the kernel of the problem. What has the Executive been providing? The previous debate on transport indicated that there was a complete absence of strategic planning for transport and roads infrastructure, which is one of the most frequently articulated concerns of business. It is more startling that the Executive has seemed impotent as a conduit to Westminster to stop the aggregates tax, which will have a devastating effect on the Scottish rural economy. The Executive also seemed blissfully indifferent to the lurking menace of tax stamps for the whisky industry until my party debated the matter in the chamber.
The Executive has achieved the remarkable commercial advertisement for Scotland of a higher business rate poundage than the rest of the UK. Businesses in Scotland pay around 9 per cent more in business rate than businesses of equivalent rateable value in England. Not just startling but downright alarming was the Local Government Committee report that was released on Wednesday last, which endorsed reinstating the right of local councils to set business rates and held out the prospect of increased council tax bills for hard-pressed payers of council tax. My colleague Mr Harding, who serves on that committee, rejected the committee's proposals in their entirety, as did the business community and the business media in Scotland.
The media not only gave an unprecedented mauling to the press launch of the report and to the actual report, but asked what kind of committee takes 18 months to come up with such negative proposals. Throw into the cauldron the mass of regulation and red tape with which business in Scotland daily struggles and the now completely discredited Executive improving regulation in Scotland unit—IRIS—and one can understand why the business community feels that, where its interests are concerned, it is being sold a pup by the Executive.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I want to proceed with this.
If the business community, which is being sold a pup, looks at the minister's amendment it will find only pap, which articulates more eloquently than I can precisely what the problem is.
Does the situation have to be like this? It does not. My party sends some short, sharp messages to the Executive: it should restore uniform business rate; it should abolish IRIS or give it a meaningful purpose in considering the repeal of existing regulation; it should persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish the aggregates tax; it should devise a transport strategy whose immediate priority is the improvement of the main arterial routes in Scotland which, in their current condition, delay, obstruct and frustrate business; and it should have a fundamental review of the role and function of the enterprise network, with the sole objective of creating a network that is concerned exclusively with promoting enterprise and improving growth and competitiveness in all sectors of the Scottish economy.
If there is any feature of the political process post-devolution that has provoked, irritated and angered the business community, it is the universally perceived fact that the Scottish Executive and the enterprise network occupy an overheated orchid house, engaged in mutual self-admiration, mutual self-congratulation and perpetual self-direction while, outside in the cold, the business community looks on with detached dismay. In the unhealthily close atmosphere between the Scottish Executive and the enterprise networks, there is an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The enterprise network cannot be a credible co-ordinator between the Scottish Executive and the business community while it is the delivery arm for numerous Scottish Executive strategies and programmes.
The apparent visibility and ability to access the Scottish political process is, for the business sector, a sterile prospect. Government meddling and interference in the enterprise process do not improve business start-ups, grow gross domestic product or create jobs; neither does distracting the core function of the enterprise network with ancillary activity such as volume training and social engineering. However, a successful enterprise economy will do more for universal opportunity and real social inclusion than any other factor.
The confidence of the business community has to be re-engaged. That will happen only if the business community is working not only with a Scottish Executive that displays a greater understanding of the flexibility and space that business needs to survive and prosper, but with a lean and demonstrably effective enterprise network that is not tied to the apron strings of the minister but has an entrepreneurial dynamism and a mind of its own.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the relatively poor performance of the Scottish economy compared to that of the UK economy as a whole; believes that public funding of enterprise programmes should be focused on infrastructure improvements which benefit all businesses; further notes the damaging effects of the higher business rate poundage in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK, and supports the reintroduction of a uniform business rate across the UK and calls for a fundamental review of the role and functions of the enterprise network, both with the objective of improving growth and competitiveness in the Scottish economy.
I thank my Conservative colleagues for securing a debate on this issue. We in the coalition parties look forward to the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to creating a smart, successful Scotland. It is well seen that spring has arrived because the Conservatives have obviously decided that it is safe to talk about the economy again, after a period of silence that they presumably feel was long enough to allow memories of mass youth unemployment, mass adult unemployment and mass long-term unemployment to fade.
In the spirit of spring, I will examine what the SNP—sorry, what the Conservatives are suggesting. I will turn to the SNP soon enough. I was going to invite the Conservatives to view themselves as the official Opposition for the time being, which, of course, the SNP usually claims to be.
Official Oppositions are expected to come up with programmes for government. What are the three big ideas in the motion today? First, that the enterprise budget should be redirected towards infrastructure improvements. With regard to that suggestion, I ask: what programmes should be cut and by how much? We are open minded and are asking for information.
The second big idea is that business rates should be cut. Fair-minded people in Scotland know that the total burden of business rates in Scotland has not risen relative to that in England. Interestingly, the Conservatives have not said whether they support the proposals for small business rates relief in Scotland.
The third big idea is that there should be
"a fundamental review of the role and functions of the enterprise network".
Why on earth would we want that? We have spent the morning talking about the fact that there are too many reviews. Before we embark on that much-vaunted review, we should think about its purpose.
The motion shows that the Conservatives do not know what they want to cut in the enterprise budget, that they will not say by how much they want to cut business rates and that they will not say what they want to review in the enterprise network or why they want to do it. Perhaps they should try again.
What I made crystal clear was the fact that the business community cannot be expected to have any confidence in the devolution process or the presence of the Scottish Executive and the enterprise network if the amounts of budgetary allocation that are being devoted to supposedly improving the economy, starting up businesses and expanding our skills are demonstrably achieving very little.
My point was that, if certain substantive measures were taken, such as restoring a uniform business rate at a cost of around £170 million and paying for that out of the enterprise budget, business would rejoice. Business people could see that, instead of that money disappearing into a bureaucratic hole, it is appearing on their territory and providing a much-needed advertisement for business in Scotland.
I think that we might have smoked a position out of the Conservatives. They are suggesting that we should cut the entirety of business support—which is worth about £100 million—and slice 25 per cent off the budget of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. That is a substantive proposal, but I doubt that it will find favour, particularly when the Conservatives will not say whether they are in favour of the small business rates relief scheme that we have introduced. I challenge them to say whether they are in favour of any specific support for small businesses and, if so, on what basis.
Having established that that is the sole substantive proposition from the Conservatives, we should examine what the Executive is doing. As people know, unlike the Conservatives, we are not looking for a quick fix of inward investment; we are saying that the future economy of Scotland rests on our indigenous science and skills. For that reason, we have brought together enterprise, research and lifelong learning in one department. We have modernised the enterprise networks at home and overseas by the creation of Careers Scotland and Scottish Development International. Furthermore, we have reformed the financial support that we give to companies at home and overseas and have created new venture capital funds. The central part of the policy is to ensure that science spending rises by 15 per cent over the lifetime of the Parliament. To that end, we have introduced the new enterprise fellowships and proof of concept funds.
I remind the chamber that, only 18 months ago, during the general election campaign, the Conservatives proposed a cut of more than £1 billion in the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry, which would have meant a cut of £120 million in Scotland. That means that the Conservatives are suggesting that there be £200 million of cuts added to the £100 million that they planned for in their budget.
I welcome the additional money that is being invested in research. However, does the minister accept that the percentage of Scotland's GDP that is spent on research and development will still be only about half the UK rate, which itself is only half the European rate? If we are to catch up with our competitors, we should be talking not about raising science spending by 15 per cent but about almost quadrupling the investment in research and development from the public and private sectors.
The figure of 15 per cent relates to public investment in science. Scotland leads Europe in terms of the investment in research and development by higher education institutions. Our difficulty is how we can stimulate research and development investment by the business community. To that end, last year we introduced R and D tax credits for small companies. It is anticipated that the UK budget that will be announced within the month will include an announcement that similar proposals for large companies will be finalised. We need to do more to stimulate knowledge transfer. The enterprise network's technology institute proposal is designed to achieve exactly that.
We are not about talk but about action, whether it be: improving the small business gateway during the past 18 months; rolling out electronic infrastructure through Project Atlas; creating Scottish Development International as the sales force for Scotland in the world; or launching Careers Scotland, which is the first all-age guidance service operating throughout the UK and is aligned to the enterprise network.
The situation is not perfect, but we have strong leadership and a programme for action. That compares well with the position of the other official Opposition party, the SNP. Does the SNP still want to abolish the local enterprise company system? The only thing that the SNP has had to say with regard to the science and skills agenda is that, somehow, it would help to make the north-east a centre of excellence in oil and gas if we were to close down Grampian's local enterprise company and relocate to central Glasgow the leadership that it provides.
The SNP's amendment says that we should tackle root causes to allow
"the optimal policy mix required to place the Scottish economy at the competitive advantage".
What does that optimal policy mix mean in relation to monetary discipline? How would interest rates be set in the short and long term? On fiscal policy, does the SNP have any equivalent to the sustainable investment rule or the golden rule? On tax policy, what is to be the level of corporation tax, personal tax or benefits? On public investment, will the SNP drop its opposition to public-private partnerships? The SNP should either clarify its macroeconomic policy in relation to any of those dimensions or tell us about its alternative proposals to the science and skills strategy.
The science and skills strategy is the right one for Scotland. Sometimes, we should learn from other small nations not simply individual policy propositions, but lessons about their willingness and ability to build a national consensus for growth. That national consensus for growth will be around science and skills, not quick fixes, either those of the past or those proposed for the future.
I move amendment S1M-2946.2, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:
"welcomes the Scottish Executive's initiatives to improve Scotland's economic position and its new economic strategy for Scotland based on science and skills; believes that the Scottish Executive should build consensus behind this new strategy; notes the significant progress already made in establishing the conditions for sustained success in relation to our key objectives: global connections, growing businesses, and skills and learning, and welcomes the clear direction given to the enterprise network through Smart, Successful Scotland to work with the Scottish Executive to deliver this vision."
Despite Tony Blair's complacent spin that the United Kingdom is the fourth-largest economy in the world, with average earnings of just over £20,000, the UK is sliding down the international league table and now occupies the 19th place—on the brink of relegation from the premier league. The standard of living for citizens of the country is in relative decline compared to that of those of our main economic competitors.
Independent Ireland, which was once the economic laughing stock of the British ruling classes, has long since overtaken poor old declining Britain. Its citizens earn on average £5,200 more than ours and are reaping the material benefits of healthy economic growth. At the same time, Ireland is able to make much more rapid progress than we are in building quality public services and addressing social justice issues. Redistribution of wealth and investment in public services are much easier to achieve and encounter much less resistance when a concomitant increase in the tax take or expansion in the tax base is possible through natural economic growth.
Mr Ingram is talking about the taxation system. Will he clarify what his vision of the taxation system in an independent Scotland is? In particular, will he clarify what percentage of GDP the tax take would be? Would it be akin to that in Ireland or that in Finland?
I am just about to expound those matters. If Bristow Muldoon will be patient, he will get his answer.
I will not hold my breath.
Mr McMahon should try it.
In Scotland, we are faced with a double disadvantage compared to the Irish. Not only are we stuck with the consistent failure of UK economic policy to stimulate high rates of growth, but we are stuck with economic policies to suit the UK's economic engine—London and the south-east of England. We have no powers of our own to lubricate or maintain the Scottish engine.
The sad fact is that the union is bad for Scotland's economy. The latest figures show little growth at all in the Scottish economy in the past year. But more damning than that is the long-term growth rate, which runs at half the UK's mediocre performance. Scotland's underperformance against the UK can be costed in cash terms as a loss of £1.4 billion from 1995 to 1999.
The notion that we have an economic union that provides a level playing field for all its constituent nations and regions to thrive is a myth. Even the Scottish Tories acknowledge that in the mention that their motion makes of business rates. The UK's playing field is much more akin to the old Easter Road slope: it is downhill all the way in favour of London and the south-east of England. Down the slope flow people with outstanding talent and skills, profits, capital and corporate decision making, to the huge detriment of the Scottish economy and every household in our land.
It is high time that we all acknowledged the leeching of our nation's life blood by the UK's capital city. The dice are loaded in London's favour because it is the centre of political power in the UK. It exerts a huge gravitational pull and creates a large, talented labour pool that is drawn from the UK and elsewhere, which in turn creates a large mass of affluent and influential consumers.
Will Mr Ingram give way?
No. He is in his last minute.
London's dominance is self-perpetuating. What is more, little can be done about that as long as Scotland is trapped in a unitary state that imposes uniform tax and interest rates across all its constituent parts. Scotland needs to be free to compete and free to generate high levels of growth and prosperity by placing our economy at a competitive advantage.
We need to place economic growth at the centre of our policy making in Scotland. We have to stop making do with rearranging the deck chairs on a slowly sinking ship and treating the symptoms of economic decline rather than tackling its root cause. We need the ability to put in place a fiscal regime that will create wealth for the nation, resource excellent public services and provide the leeway to address social justice through redistribution. We need to create a vibrant economy that will grow businesses with R and D capability and attract and retain business headquarters in Scotland. We need to be able to define particularly Scottish business tax measures that will create an incentive for growth as general taxation under European Union rules. We cannot do that unless we achieve independence.
I move amendment S1M-2946.1, to leave out from "as a whole" to end and insert:
"and competitor European economies over the post war period; further notes that the efforts of enterprise development agencies and initiatives within the uniform UK economic policy regime have had no apparent effect on our relative economic decline throughout the period and that the gap in performance would appear to have widened more recently; believes that the policy and debate in Scotland has so far been focused on dealing with the symptoms of this relative economic decline rather than its root causes, and calls for a refocusing of the political debate in Scotland on the potential for the acquisition and use of the range of financial and economic powers available to competitor states such as Ireland and Finland and the optimal policy mix required to place the Scottish economy at the competitive advantage required to achieve faster growth, higher living standards and an improved revenue stream to resource sustained investment in public services."
The minister has talked about research and development. I point out to members that everything that the Executive has done to increase access to universities—the abolition of tuition fees and the reintroduction of financial assistance—means that a record number of people are going to Scottish universities and applying to go to Scottish universities. Those people will be the seedcorn for the future growth of business and industry in Scotland. That is one concrete move that we have made and it is there for all to see.
My second point is a good Highland point. The debate has been on the overall Scottish scale and whether to have a union. That does not go down desperately well in the Highlands, particularly with small businesses. There has been talk in the past in the chamber about future legislation that would enable planning authorities to say to a supermarket company, as and when a new supermarket is built, that part of the planning conditions will be to devote a certain percentage of shelf space to local produce. That would go down exceedingly well in our rural areas. I know that there are difficulties with defining local produce, but I recommend that the Executive consider that carefully indeed.
My most important point concerns what I have in my wallet. That is a €20 note. I show it to the Tories—in fact, I will pass it round and they can have a look at it. A recent survey of industries in Scotland, which was conducted by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, showed that 30 per cent of Scottish firms wish to join the euro at the first possible opportunity and that 41 per cent would like to join the euro in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is a huge majority in favour of joining the euro.
Will Jamie Stone give way?
I will in due course.
I have given the euro note to the Conservatives deliberately, because they must focus on the key issue for Scotland's economy, which is getting into the euro. It was interesting that Miss Goldie, in a speech that was splendid and fragrant as usual, did not comment on that key issue.
To return to the Highlands, when we speak to farmers and businesses little and large in the Highlands, they say loudly and clearly to George Lyon, to me and to other Highland colleagues, "For goodness sake, get into the euro." The fluctuation in currency between the rock of the mighty dollar and the hard place of the euro means that the pound seesaws about. For someone running a retail business and trying to buy fruit, for example, from abroad, it is almost impossible to plan what the price will be. They may find that they have been robbed of their profit.
I tell the Tories to study the €20 note. It is key to Scotland's future. I look forward to hear what the Tories have to say about the euro in their closing speech. Have they distanced themselves from the Euroscepticism of the past?
I wish everyone a happy Easter.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Does Mr Stone have any more €20 notes?
That is not a point of order; nor is it a matter for the chair whether Mr Stone gets his money back.
Speaking from a rural perspective, I can say unequivocally that the most important parts of the motion are the plea
"that public funding of enterprise programmes should be focused on infrastructure improvements"
and the subsequent call
"for a fundamental review of the role and functions of the enterprise network".
Nowadays, infrastructure falls into two categories: the traditional infrastructure of roads, railways and public transport and the new information and communications technology infrastructure of broadband and the information superhighway. To illustrate my point, I would like to examine both those categories as they currently exist—or rather do not exist—in the south-west of Scotland.
The problems with the A75, which is a recognised trans-European network route, have already been well aired in the chamber, not least during the previous debate but, sadly, to little avail. The problems with the A77 and A76 are less well publicised but equally pressing. Those three roads represent the main arteries into and out of south-west Scotland. As long there are only tenuous rail links, commuting possibilities are unrealistic. The public transport system is rendered virtually useless by the rurality of the region, and the end result is an area from which people have to move if they cannot find work within it. That explains why Dumfries and Galloway is the only region of Scotland with a declining population, which is surely a graphic enough statistic to explain why something must be done.
Despite Jim Wallace's reassurances during the 9 January debate on the Executive's priorities that the pathfinder project in the south of Scotland provides the be-all and end-all of information technology provision in rural Scotland, the information superhighway remains a dream for most individuals, businesses and employers in the south of Scotland. Why else would both the chief executive of Dumfries and Galloway Council and the chief executive of the local enterprise company agree that, unless something is urgently done to bring broadband technology to their region, it will continue to have to play catch-up with the central belt when it comes to attracting jobs into the area.
How much of the budget does Alex Fergusson propose to spend on upgrading the roads in the south of Scotland and on providing the information superhighway?
If George Lyon had been present at the previous debate, he would have heard exactly the answer to that question, so I suggest that he read the Official Report.
The equation is quite simple, as people will follow good roads, and jobs will follow people. It does not matter whether those good roads are the traditional vehicular highways or the new technological superhighways; the result is the same. Of course, the Executive understands all that; why else would it include among its principal aims in the glossy document "Rural Scotland: A New Approach" the aim to
"invest in our young people by bringing childcare, education, training and employment opportunities to where they live and work. Getting on need not mean going away"?
That aim rings pretty hollow with the people of Dumfries and Galloway, and with most people in rural Scotland. Far from
"bringing … education … to where they live and work",
Dumfries and Galloway Council is having to consider closing 39 primary schools and three secondary schools. Far from employment opportunities being brought to the people of Dumfries and Galloway, the population is steadily declining. Access to services is so pathetic that one young graduate who gave evidence to the Rural Development Committee last week said that he could find work up in Ayrshire but not the public transport to get there.
For the community, expansion and business development are almost things of the past, as West of Scotland Water claims that its services can take no more strain and that therefore it cannot condone further developments. That is not a pretty picture.
If we superimpose the effect of the Executive's legislative impositions on rural Scotland, the picture becomes even less pretty. Never mind the rights and wrongs of a ban on hunting; no matter the muddled thinking behind the land reform proposals; no matter the continued inability of the Executive to support and foster the primary products of our different regions—the result of the eventual legislation will be further deterioration in the jobs and economic prospects of rural Scotland.
The Executive's answer to that mess is limply to condone the introduction of the aggregates tax on 1 April—what a suitable date! The Confederation of British Industry says that that tax is causing chaos and confusion throughout the country. Chaos, confusion and muddled thinking sums up the efforts of the Executive on rural enterprise. The time to refocus on what are very real problems is long overdue. I totally support the motion.
There is an end-of-term feel to the debate. One wonders whether it is spring when one sees the first moleskin suit, and Andrew Wilson, in whom Simon Templar somehow displaces Harry Potter. However, we come back to earth with a dunt when we hear David Davidson promising that the Tories are going to do the same job on enterprise. Thankfully, he has removed himself from the chamber. When people in my constituency hear that the Tories are going to do the same job on enterprise, they remember the Tory record: the lost businesses and homes and the destroyed hopes. That is one reason why the Tory party, although it may come back in many parts of the country, will remain fifth out of five in Strathkelvin and Bearsden.
The debate has been unfortunate. Annabel Goldie usually makes spirited contributions to our proceedings, but her speech today was surprisingly lacklustre. I suspect that that was because she did not really believe half what she was saying but felt obliged to have an end-of-term knockabout on the performance of the enterprise network. However, she did not advance much on that front.
Annabel Goldie touched on one point about which I share some concern. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will be aware of my interest in the activities of the Executive's IRIS unit and of my various parliamentary questions. I entirely accept that much of the regulatory burden on businesses arises as the result of European or UK legislation, but I am surprised by the lack of resource that was disclosed in answer to my questions, and in particular by the grades of staff employed in that unit. I urge the minister to consider seriously how we can get the work of those with experience of business impact aligned with the work of the unit so that we may make more progress on that front.
If Mr Fitzpatrick could resist sartorial allegations, I would be grateful.
In the interest of the debate, can the member tell us whether the aim of the Executive's economic policy is to close the wealth gap with the rest of the United Kingdom or just to mitigate our continuing relative decline?
It would take me slightly over my time to give Andrew Wilson sartorial advice, so I will desist from that.
Andrew Wilson makes a point that was wholly absent from Annabel Goldie's speech. She gave the game away when she spoke about the fundamental review of the enterprise network. She made no mention of social justice ambitions for the network or for employment, nor of widening access to higher education, skills and jobs.
The point about business expansion is that, if we are to have an enterprise network that operates according to what its name suggests, we have to let it focus on the enterprise economy of the country. I specifically said that we will do more if we succeed in that. The phrase that I used was:
"for universal opportunity and real social inclusion".
I am obliged. That contribution takes us back to the essential divide between the far right in the Parliament and the bulk of members of the Parliament, who do not view social justice ambitions as the distaff side of an enterprise economy. After 18 years of these people—the Tories—we realise that putting 3 million people, with their skills, talents and ambitions, on to the scrap heap is not the way to run an economy.
We have had a hard job returning from the mess that has been left by the Tories. We have built in economic stability and the conditions for growth. There is nothing in the Conservative motion that encourages us to support it, so we should not vote for it today.
I feel as though I am intervening in a family feud between two right-wing unionist parties. I could hardly split the difference between them in the eye of a needle.
I want to make three points in the four minutes that are available. The first is that, irrespective of what the Parliament does at a microeconomic level, if that is not in tune with the macroeconomic policy that is decided in London, it will not have the desired effect in Scotland. I will give some examples of that, starting with taxation policy. No independent Scottish Government with power over fiscal policy would in its right mind have the current fuel tax regime. No Government whose priority interest lay in Scotland would tax its own national drink at the rate of 50 per cent. Would the French tax wine at 50 per cent? No way. That is another example of Scotland trying to promote an industry that is being taxed to the hilt by the chancellor in London.
I will give members another example. One of the biggest economic problems that we face in Scotland is depopulation. According to one forecast, by 2065 Scotland's population will be down from more than 5 million to 3.8 million, which has major economic implications. We need to do two things. First, we need to keep many more of our young, talented people in Scotland—to encourage them to stay to build a career here. Secondly, we need to have a positive immigration policy—not one that chases people away, sometimes because of the colour of their skin, but one that welcomes all creeds and types to Scotland if they have something to contribute to economic revival. An independent Scotland would have an entirely different immigration policy from that of the UK.
Will the member give way?
No. Brian Fitzpatrick should sit down.
Another issue is interest rates and their effect on exchange rates. No independent Scottish Government would pursue the interest rate and exchange rate policy—the lunacy—that is being pursued by Gordon Brown. Until we get control of macroeconomic policy—
Will the member give way?
Ben Wallace should sit down.
Until we get control of macroeconomic policy, all the strategies—all the enterprise networks and the money that is spent on them—will not work. They will not work unless they are part and parcel of a real national strategy for Scotland.
The second issue is that of scale. The minister's comments on research and development, although factually accurate, betrayed complacency. The fact is that one company, Nokia, spends more on research and development than the whole of Scotland spends. Until we lift our eyes—until we get into the same league as the Nokias, the Finlands and Irelands of this world—we will be kidding ourselves about our ability to close the growth rate gap. The venture capital fund is a great idea, and I welcome the £20 million over three years that has been allocated, but that is peanuts compared to what is required.
My final point relates to the enterprise network. Let us never forget that it was the Tories who destroyed the Scottish Development Agency and created Scottish Enterprise. I agree with much that Annabel Goldie said about the balkanisation of the enterprise network in Scotland. The figure of £100 million for business support has been cited, but how much of that ends up with businesses and how much ends up in the pockets of consultants? That issue needs to be addressed, but we will not be able to address such issues until we have full power. I declare an interest as someone who used to do consultancy work for Scottish Enterprise.
As a Scottish Conservative, I am proud to be part of the only party in Scotland that understands and trusts business. We realise that it is individuals and businesses, not politicians, who create a successful economy and a prosperous society.
I contrast our approach with the behaviour of the Local Government Committee, which has exposed the long-term plans of the three left-of-centre parties to change business rates. Committee members from those parties all wanted to allow councils to determine and collect business rates, which would hit business and directly stunt investment growth as the inevitable increase in rates removed the current level playing field.
I was the one voice of dissent on the committee, ensuring that the business community's well-publicised opposition to the proposal was heard. That opposition was completely ignored, as the committee caved in to its chums in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
Even when the Executive seemed to heed business calls for it to honour its commitment to reject any such proposal, Aberdeen Central Labour MP Frank Doran let the cat out of the bag by backing calls for Aberdeen and other cities to get back the right to fix, collect and spend business rates.
The view of Tom Sunter of the Institute of Directors is clear. He said:
"We feel very strongly that returning business rates to council control would be another way of adding stealth tax."
Will the member give way?
Andrew Wilson will have an opportunity to reply to my speech in summing up.
Bill Stitt, deputy director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, who has consistently argued for the return of a uniform business rate for the whole of the UK, stated:
"Returning business rates to local authority control would only exacerbate this problem."
It is clear to me that Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP members are more interested in the views of their fellow like-minded politicians than in the views of everyone in business in Scotland. Let us not forget that business generates the wealth that politicians tax to spend on public services.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I will give way to Fergus Ewing.
Does Keith Harding not recall that for the first 11 years of the previous Conservative Government local authorities were allowed to set business rates? Does he not also recall that only in 1995—year 16 of 18 years of Tory rule—did the discrimination of higher business rates on Scottish businesses come to an end? Is that not totally inconsistent with the Tory motion that we are debating today?
Of course it is not totally inconsistent with the motion. We introduced the uniform business rate and we want it to be maintained.
Without business wealth creation there would be no public spending, so easing the burden of tax and regulation on Scotland's firms is paramount for the future of the whole of Scotland. Scots firms already pay 9 per cent more than their English counterparts. That makes it more economical for a company to invest south of the border.
The fault lies with the Labour party, which abolished the uniform business rate, creating a competitive disadvantage for Scotland. In my region, restoring the UBR would save Fife local businesses £7.6 million each year.
The SNP is no better.
Will the member give way?
The member is in his last minute.
The SNP says that it wants to ease the burden on Scottish business, but would let our councils milk them with much higher business rates. Where is the consistency there?
Even the Executive's sop of the rate relief scheme for small businesses is no help, as it is a typical bureaucrat's reaction to a problem. It is extremely unfair on medium-to-large businesses and sends out entirely the wrong message to firms that are considering locating in Scotland. It also discourages expansion in our indigenous firms.
The Scottish Conservatives recognise the problem and have the solution. Our plan is to bring down the rate poundage for the current year from 47p in the pound to the English level of 43p. The resulting £176 million loss in revenue would easily be funded by a reduction in spending on the enterprise networks.
It is time for the other parties to join the Conservatives in listening to and understanding business needs. The proposal of the Local Government Committee has met with outright rejection from the business community. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are the only party that has so far rejected the recommendation. It is time that Parliament as a whole woke up to that and accepted our proposals to cut tax and greatly boost business in Scotland. I support the motion.
Alex Neil has left the chamber, but I point out that I have never before heard Wendy Alexander called complacent.
I would like to focus on the significant role that is played by the enterprise network in the development of the Scottish economy. The Conservative motion is short-sighted, to say the least, in its understanding of the role played by the development agencies. It fails to grasp the importance of the enterprise network in encouraging new ventures, fostering enterprise and providing strategic oversight for the way ahead.
Encouraging growth and innovation throughout our economy is dependent on a large number of factors. Quite rightly, developing modern infrastructure is a key pillar of that. However, there is a great need to provide targeted support and assistance to business and entrepreneurs, allowing ideas to be turned into employment. The small business gateway is providing a one-stop shop for a wide array of quality advice and services for new businesses throughout Scotland.
In my constituency, the service is enabling start-ups to grow and to establish healthy market foundations. Only last week, Scotchem—a pharmaceuticals supply company based in Kirkcaldy—celebrated achieving significant growth in its first year. The company has cited the essential role that market research, advice and business planning from Fife small business gateway—which is a partnership between the enterprise network and Fife Council—played in its success. That is just one example of a growing band of start-ups in Fife.
The underlying theme of the Executive's approach to the enterprise network, expressed in "A Smart, Successful Scotland", is enabling ideas and innovations to get out into the marketplace.
Bridging the gap between innovation, enterprise and capital investment is the essential role that the enterprise network plays. Scottish Enterprise's proof of concept fund is a pioneering example of how that philosophy is being put into practice. The fund of more than £30 million is targeted at assisting commercialisation, particularly in science and technology.
I want to be on record as saying that all that is terrific and the Executive is to be lauded for it. However, will the outcome of it be a closing of the wealth gap with the rest of the United Kingdom or just mitigation of our continuing relative decline?
I shall continue. I hear what Andrew Wilson is saying, but I genuinely believe that improvements need to be made and I will come on to that in the rest of my speech.
One reason why I mentioned the proof of concept fund is that Alex Neil spoke about the need to commercialise and fund research. We have to consider not just funding but how we develop that research, roll it out into the economy and create new opportunities.
Work is continuing to improve the enterprise networks, as all the major stakeholders are aware. Scottish Enterprise addressed many issues in January in its strategy for business start-ups. I have concerns about the business transformation programme that is under way. I urge the minister to ensure that in taking on national strategic issues, we ensure that local flexibility is considered. I believe that our success has lain in local imagination and innovation. I ask the minister to ensure that the correct balance is achieved.
The microeconomic foundations for delivering growth and job creation are in place and what is needed is considered innovative thinking, not right-wing economic dogma. That will build on our foundations and realise fully the vision of a smart, successful Scotland.
We believe that a strong vibrant economy can generate growth and promote social well-being, which the Tory motion ignores. I urge the Parliament not to support the motion.
I ask that the next two speeches be of three minutes, to allow everybody in.
I will comment on the situation in Ayrshire and endorse my colleagues' comments on the mishandling of the economy.
The reality in Ayrshire is that we feel under threat. We have lost more than 1,000 jobs in the past few months in the Prestwick area alone, with many others going in the surrounding areas. Our quarries are under threat from the unfair aggregates tax and the Auchincruive campus is under threat of closure. In short, although spring is coming—as the minister has said—and everyone wants to be optimistic, we must be realistic.
Yesterday, BT announced the closure of its Ayr call centre and the transfer of around 100 jobs to Glasgow. Earlier in the month, Compaq announced the transfer of 600 jobs from Ayr to its Erskine plant.
The reality in rural Ayrshire is dreadful too. Ayrshire did not have foot-and-mouth disease, but the farmers whose animals did not have foot-and-mouth are worse off than those whose animals did.
Tourism has had a dreadful time too, although I welcome the initiative taken to develop the Burns festival. That must be a success and a building block for our tourism industry, which has been so badly represented throughout Scotland in the past.
Quite simply, the Scottish Executive must do better. A growth rate of 0.8 per cent, while the UK economy grew at 2.6 per cent, is simply not good enough. The Scottish Executive has to realise that people and businesses create jobs. Glossy brochures and fanfare launches do not in themselves make a difference. What makes a difference is the creation of the right climate for businesses to start and grow. Sadly, that climate does not exist in Scotland at the moment.
It is not easy—I know, because I have tried—to start businesses or maintain new or existing ones. Why would somebody choose Scotland as a place in which to start up businesses, given our high business rates, our excessive red tape, our bureaucracy and our inadequately funded and functioning enterprise network?
Will the member give way?
Yes.
No, the member is in his last minute. I gave him three minutes and that is all that he is getting.
I do apologise.
The Conservatives would do more to encourage new and existing businesses. We would reintroduce a uniform business rate and seek to abolish the aggregates tax. We would deliver a genuine less-is-more environment with less bureaucracy, regulation and tax and more targeted encouragement. By doing less, better, we would achieve more.
I support the Conservative motion.
I will keep to my three minutes, Presiding Officer.
Wendy Alexander referred to quick fixes and Marilyn Livingstone applauded the enterprise system, but the experience in the Scottish Borders has given no cause for that satisfaction.
It was announced proudly in 1999 that the call centre at Claridge Mills in Selkirk would provide 250 jobs, at least 60 of which would be in place by October 1999. The last figure that I have shows that there were 28 jobs in January, eight of which were in management. I tried to confirm the exact figures this morning, but the company is not answering my phone calls—I wonder why. The cost so far to the public purse of that little enterprise has been £680,000 and regional selective assistance is in the pipeline.
However, when ordinary people in the Borders try to access enterprise funds they find it extremely difficult. I refer to Thompson and Son Bakers in Hawick. The owner used his own money to renovate an old building and turn it into a bakery, which cost him £56,500. He asked for help from Scottish Enterprise Borders and got £1,500. He has six jobs and another six in the pipeline.
John Mackay of Eyemouth took over the old Co-op, which overlooks Eyemouth harbour, and redeveloped it into a splendid restaurant, which opened three weeks ago. The business employs 20 people and he is looking to develop it. He got nothing from Scottish Enterprise Borders.
Another lady in Peebles, who wants only £2,000 to start up a business, got an offer of £500 from Scottish Enterprise Borders for information technology. However, Manpower can get £670,000 for providing 28 jobs to date. That is the problem with the system on the ground.
The other problem with the system is the infrastructure in rural areas, to which Alex Fergusson referred. The Ettrick riverside business centre has just opened in Selkirk. Its aim is to provide a complete business facility for Borders people. The problem with that centre is that it does not have broadband. Another problem is the road network to the Borders. The A1 is not complete; the A68 has just a couple of crawler lanes; and the A7 and A702 are definitely scenic routes. I will not even mention the railways. With infrastructure like that, who will locate in the Borders?
How on earth can the Borders get on? How can enterprise develop in that community with that kind of system in place? Lots of guff gets spoken in here. Ordinary people cannot set up businesses in the Borders, because they cannot access the funds that the large companies can access.
The debate has an end-of-term feel to it. The prize for the best put-down must go to the Presiding Officer, for his remark to Jamie Stone.
The Executive has taken a range of actions to improve the competitive position of Scottish industry, as we have heard from the minister and other members. The introduction of the small business rates relief scheme will benefit an estimated 70 per cent of Scotland's businesses. That figure will be even higher in rural areas, where small businesses make up and dominate the business scene. The new scheme will be of benefit to large numbers of small businesses in my constituency.
The Executive has also taken action to improve Scotland's skills base and tackle the shortage of skills. The minister alluded to the comprehensive review of the careers service, followed by its rationalisation to ensure lifelong career advice, which is a significant step forward. The actions that have been taken include: the scrapping of tuition fees; the commitment to funding 2,800 additional higher education places; the commitment to funding 40,000 places in further education colleges; and the establishment of learndirect Scotland to give everyone in Scotland one-stop access to post-school training, skills and education.
Will the member tell the chamber whether none of that would have happened without the Liberal Democrats?
I can assure the member that none of that would have happened without the Liberal Democrats. It certainly happened without him.
Together, those initiatives should improve our skills base and ensure that we improve our competitive position. However, there is no doubt that the worldwide recession appears to be hitting Scotland's economy harder than the economy in the rest of the UK. The recently published GDP figures bear that out.
Scotland's heavy reliance on big inward investment, especially in the electronics industry, has left us vulnerable in times of recession. When companies such as Motorola are hit by recession and losses, it is all too easy for them to pull the plug on plants in Scotland. The minister has acknowledged that, although the strategy of attracting big inward investment projects into Scotland has been successful, it brings with it the dangers of leaving Scotland exposed to forces that are outwith our control.
The minister's decision to refocus the Executive's enterprise strategy towards investing in and growing indigenous businesses is therefore welcome. It is interesting to note that Ireland, which successfully pursued a similar policy to Scotland for the past 20 years, has also refocused its enterprise policy towards growing indigenous Irish businesses.
The SNP's amendment highlights the muddle and confusion that lie at the heart of SNP policy. We heard that in the speeches by SNP members. Their newly rediscovered policy of independence has no clarity. In the same breath, they mention Ireland and Finland as models that they wish Scotland to emulate. One is a high-tax, highly regulated economy; the other is a low-tax, deregulated economy.
The question for SNP members is which model do they want Scotland to follow? Is it the Finnish model or the Irish model? I hope that Andrew Wilson, who seems to favour the Irish model, will tell us in his wind-up speech. Which model would the SNP follow? There are great implications for whichever model it chooses.
As for the Tories, Annabel Goldie's proposal to slash the enterprise budget by over £100 million to fund business taxes would go down like a lead balloon in my constituency and throughout the Highlands and Islands. A 25 per cent cut in the HIE budget would spell disaster for economic regeneration throughout the Highlands and Islands.
I was cut and deeply hurt by Annabel Goldie's opening comments. It is one of the great ironies and inequities of modern politics that young gentlemen have to accept slings and arrows from ladies on their sartorial elegance, but making such remarks vice versa is impossible. I open by commenting that Miss Goldie's purple dotted cravat is lovely.
The debate is important to Scotland's future success. The Parliament and the parties involved must get their act together and acknowledge the realities of Scotland's performance, which is utterly mediocre. It gives me no pleasure to say that, but the simple truth is that our growth performance is unacceptable. Our amendment seeks to bring to the debate a call for all parties to acknowledge that fact and to have an open-minded look at how we can equip ourselves with the powers to have the policy mix that George Lyon pointed to.
I welcome George Lyon's question. I would love to have the debate about Scotland's national target. Do we follow the Scandinavian model or the Irish model?
You tell us.
If the member would apply his ears more than his mouth, he might learn.
The Conservatives might seek a low-tax deregulated economy. The Labour party might seek to follow that route and the Liberal Democrats might follow another. The point of the SNP amendment is that that debate cannot begin in Scotland, because we have a model imposed upon us from outwith.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Throughout the debate, Jamie Stone has moved around the chamber, talking over the member who is speaking. If he wants to act like the licensed clown, let him, but surely he should give respect to all the speakers in the debate.
I had not heard Mr Stone. That is something that you should leave for me to worry about, Mr Neil.
With all due respect, we cannot hear what is being said.
I can hear Mr Wilson very clearly.
I cannot.
I would be grateful if Andrew Wilson would continue.
I am grateful, Presiding Officer.
My point was that I want Scottish political debate to focus on such serious questions. I have my own ideas and we all bring our own ideas to the debate. However, this morning the focus has been on two parties that say that they are better placed to manage Scotland's relative decline. My comment to the Conservatives is that yes, the Labour party's performance on Scotland's economy in the past few years has been utterly mediocre. I do not even think that that is a function of Labour party policy; it is the context in which it finds itself. The Conservative's policy approach would produce no real difference. The post-war experience in Scotland has been of managed relative decline. It is a long-term problem, which is not due to the worldwide recession but arises from our being part of an economic union without being able to place ourselves at a competitive advantage to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Will the member give way?
I have had three offers and three declines. I will move on.
The member is not giving way.
The Executive and the other parties have to answer a simple point. I support the Executive team on many of the programmes that it brings to the table, but what will it do to close the wealth gap that has been identified between Scotland and the rest of the UK and Europe? Is the issue one of overtaking our competitors or mitigating our relative decline? The simple truth is that, at present, disposable wealth in the rest of the UK is growing three times faster than in Scotland. In the past six years, the growth in disposable wealth in the south-east has been 24 per cent, but in Scotland growth has been 9 per cent. If we had grown at the same rate, we would have £8.4 billion more in the Scottish economy. That is the gap that we have to close.
Will the member give way?
Given all the interruptions that I have had, I need to move on.
This is a long-term problem. Labour's approach to politics has been to nursemaid Scotland's political, economic and social symptoms since the war. Everyone loves a nurse, so Labour has been popular, but that approach has not changed the underlying causes of our relative decline. Politics needs to grow up and move on. We need to have a debate on the economy that is more mature in tone than the stupid, narrow sniping that we have had over the past few years. I hope that Wendy Alexander will address that issue in her summation and show some leadership to her party, which she can do.
My simple point is that we would trust the Executive ministers with the full powers of independence at their disposal. It is ironic that in Scotland we have the only finance minister on earth who does not trust himself with the nation's finances, and we have the only economics minister on earth who does not trust herself with the nation's economic powers. We would. Let us get moving, tackle the mediocrity and have a proper and mature debate.
I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debate. There were a number of suggestions on how we might improve the enterprise network. In particular, Alex Fergusson referred to the need to strengthen our capability to support rural Scotland. Annabel Goldie and Brian Fitzpatrick talked about the IRIS unit and how more expertise has been brought to bear. Alex Neil made the point that Scotland is an attractive place to live and work, and said that the talent strategy in Scottish Enterprise needs to be expanded. Christine Grahame eloquently made the case for why we should support indigenous businesses more by reconfiguring regional selective assistance in the future.
I turn to some of the bigger issues. The Conservatives made a charge about the atrophy of Scottish Enterprise's bureaucracy. An organisation that is seeing its head count go from 1,900 last year to 1,500 next year—a cut of 400—could hardly be accused of atrophying. The cost of public relations external services is also falling by a quarter in the current year, so there is movement on some issues.
I am still unclear about whether the SNP's position is that it wishes to abolish the LEC network. I am also unclear about whether the Tories support a small business rates relief scheme. That takes us to the central policy choice that is before us. The Tories' solution is to cut a further £180 million, in addition to the £100 million that they wished to cut from the budget last year. The Conservatives should use the Easter holidays to think about the wisdom of proposing cuts of £280 million. Such cuts would end investment in science and replace it with an indiscriminate cut in business rates that would benefit big business—because the Conservatives do not support a scheme for small businesses—and inward investors. A £280 million cut, resulting in the ending of the investment in science that we seek to achieve, is antithetical to a science and skills strategy.
Andrew Wilson said that he wanted to have a macroeconomic policy. Let us be clear. Scotland has a choice of macroeconomic policies. It can choose the policy under the current constitutional arrangement, which I will not go over, because people know it. Jim Mather and Alex Neil appear to favour that macroeconomic policy, which places us outwith the European single currency area. John Swinney's macroeconomic policy is that we should not favour cuts in corporation tax, but Andrew Wilson is willing to do that. I will go to the heart of what the SNP said. One option is not considering Scotland relative to England. The choice is to do what it takes to get Scotland growing again. That is at the heart of our difficulty with the SNP. Its constitutional solution requires us to break up Britain before we can pursue any of its policy prescriptions, on which the SNP has as wide a range of views as it has members.
As a director of Scotland in Europe, Jim Mather can hardly be against the euro. I am not for the break-up of anything. I want to empower the Scottish Executive. The minister referred to the research and development money that might be provided in the next UK budget. What will that do to improve Scotland's position relative to its competitors in the rest of the UK and to close the gap?
That is the central con of the SNP's policy. I ask the SNP to show me any sovereign state in Europe in which different areas have different corporation tax rates. The only way to say that the rate should be 18p, 20p or 35p in Scotland is to break up Britain first. That is the dishonesty of the policy that the SNP peddles.
A wider issue that links the SNP and the Tories is the suggestion that our economic salvation lies in competitive undercutting on tax. If members look around the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, they will see that the total tax take in Japan—the "economic basket case" of the OECD—is 30 per cent, whereas the level in Scandinavian countries is higher than 50 per cent. Therefore, the idea that, uniquely, our economic salvation lies in competitive undercutting of one or another element of the tax burden is not borne out by the evidence.
The evidence is that investing in science and skills is the answer to boosting Scottish performance. That means the first-ever science strategy, links between the University of Edinburgh and Stanford University, the Alba Centre as a focus of research in microelectronics, enterprise fellowships, technology institutes and five times as many modern apprenticeships as before.
Will the minister give way?
No. The minister is closing.
The answer involves creating careers Scotland, an adult literacy scheme and a Scottish university for industry. Scotland's economic salvation lies in the consistent pursuit of that strategy, around which we want to build a consensus that stretches beyond the coalition parties, out across Scotland and to other parties.
Scotland's salvation does not involve super profits through corporation tax cuts for inward investors or bigger business rates bribes for big business. It involves a balanced taxation policy and a strategy for growth. The Executive is pursuing that approach. We invite support for it.
One disappointing element of the debate is that it was undersubscribed. That is unfortunate, because we spend too much time debating how we spend Scotland's wealth, rather than how we will create it. A morning devoted to discussing the economy and one of the most important components in improving economic growth—our transport infrastructure—is well spent.
The speeches from the principal parties in this morning's debates have been interesting. However, it cannot be more clear now that only one party in Scotland is committed to improving Scotland's transport infrastructure and delivering for business and the economy. That party is the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do not doubt the minister's good intentions, but five years of failure since Labour's election in 1997—almost three of those years post devolution—have meant that fact has given way to spin and self-justification.
Will the member give way?
I will do so in a moment, because I feel sorry for Sylvia Jackson.
We hear a range of views from the SNP, from the out-and-out Stalinism of some members—Mr Quinan comes to mind—to the more Milton Friedman-style economics that Mr Wilson prefers. That range of views demonstrates that, while SNP members—or, at least, most of them—may be bound by a common commitment to independence, the SNP does not have a coherent strategy for Scotland's economy or its transport infrastructure.
When the SNP leader, John Swinney, unveiled the SNP's "Talking Independence" campaign a few weeks ago, he pledged that his party would provide
"the most sophisticated economic presentation on independence ever devised."
So far, the SNP has failed to live up to that promise. No matter how many prawn cocktails are consumed or lattes are drunk, I cannot believe that anybody in the business community in Scotland believes that the stewardship of the Scottish economy would be better in SNP hands. Nothing that has been said this morning makes me change that view.
David Mundell's comments so far have been rather negative. Will he comment on the new business start-up rate in the Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley area? In common with the Fife area, very good results have been achieved by Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley, which has passed its original target of 497 start-ups. The total includes 188 start-ups by women and at least 24 business start-ups in social inclusion partnership areas.
The member raises an important issue, but I am coming to my scrutiny of the enterprise network.
When someone runs a business, they have to make hard choices. They have to decide which things it would be nice to do, but which things are essential. That is the position in which the Scottish Executive finds itself, relative to the expenditure of its enterprise and lifelong learning department.
Businesses cannot proceed on the everything-but-nothing-is-a-priority basis that so bedevils the Scottish Executive. Businesses have to make choices, and the Scottish Executive has to do that too.
We are brave enough to make those choices and to answer to the Scottish people and to businesses for the choices that we make. When it comes to the economy, the choice is quite clear: either we put substantial investment into our transport infrastructure and into delivering broadband infrastructure—the roads and the railways of the 21st century—so that businesses can thrive and develop, or we continue to fritter away money on myriad schemes and initiatives that are operated by the enterprise companies or the Executive. That is not a difficult call, because it is clear that existing arrangements are not working. Let us not shirk the choice, but let us come down firmly in favour of investment in transport and technology infrastructure.
One of the most positive features of the Parliament is the opportunity that it has provided for proper scrutiny of budgets that are spent in Scotland, in particular in the case of non-departmental bodies. George Lyon may have sung the praises of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, including his colleague Tavish Scott, were much more concerned to hear that 20 per cent of Highlands and Islands Enterprise's budget is spent on administration. We have to get to the bottom of facts such as those, because they show that there is considerable scope for transfer of funds. That exercise must be undertaken and we continue to scrutinise the Executive in debates such as this one.
Given David Mundell's interest in transfer of funds, does he agree that particular consideration should be given to West Dunbartonshire? Is it a place to which he would be content to transfer some of the funds that are not being spent in rural areas?
I am sure that the Deputy Presiding Officer would like me to commit all sorts of funds to the Dunbartonshire area, but I cannot do that in this speech.
I do not accept criticism of the calling to account of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It is our job, on behalf of the taxpayer and the business community, to call those organisations to account. We make no apology for doing that. The significant costs that are attributed to those organisations are a direct cost on every business in Scotland. I note Sylvia Jackson's positive comments about Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley, but we have to judge every component of the enterprise network on the basis of what difference it makes. We have to ask, "What are the outputs and how can we measure them?" Furthermore, we have to do that in a context of asking whether local authorities could perform any of the functions better.
Although Ms Alexander might not be asking such questions, we most certainly are. Alex Neil is right to say that the Conservatives introduced the present form of the enterprise network. However, it is quite clear that times have moved on, not least with the creation of the Scottish Parliament, and what was appropriate a decade ago might no longer be so.
My colleague Alex Fergusson highlighted the difficulties that are being faced in rural Scotland, and Christine Grahame eloquently did the same. At least the minister did not say—as she did on transport matters—that the rural economy has been fixed, although it would be helpful to all concerned if she pointed out to us where her responsibilities for the rural economy end and Ross Finnie's responsibilities begin.
Keith Harding concentrated on business rates and made clear our opposition to the Local Government Committee's ill-conceived proposals, which not only unfairly target businesses across different local authorities in Scotland but completely undermine the commitment to a uniform business rate that business in Scotland has struggled to achieve. We cannot and would never support such measures and will take every parliamentary opportunity to demonstrate just how damaging they are.
To improve our economic performance in Scotland, the Scottish Executive could take certain positive steps, the most obvious of which is significant investment in our transport infrastructure. It is time that the Executive made that a real priority in its economic policy instead of prioritising regulation, bureaucracy and increased business rates.
I support Miss Goldie's motion.