Economic Development
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1405, in the name of Wendy Alexander, on the framework for economic development. There are two amendments to the motion.
This debate is about the framework for economic development. It is an opportunity for members from all parties to discuss how they see the framework being developed and implemented in the interests of the Scottish economy. At root, the framework is about how Scotland becomes an earning, learning and connected nation.
I begin with a candid admission: there is a risk that the debate may become dry, worthy and dull. I will devote my speech to some of the specifics—how do we make the dry document on the framework real? The framework is about bringing together social justice and economic efficiency to the benefit of all Scots. At the heart of the partnership is our determination to make every Scot job ready for tomorrow's jobs. That is what it is going to take for the nation to win economically and for our people to prosper.
This morning I was in Glasgow, at the Scottish end of the UK-wide celebrations for the new deal, which has helped 250,000 youngsters in the United Kingdom into work. In Scotland, we hit our part of that target last spring. Today 29,000—almost 30,000—young Scots have moved into work. That is on average more than 400 youngsters in every constituency in Scotland.
Will Wendy Alexander tell the chamber how many of those young people went into sustainable—rather than short-term—employment?
I am delighted to do so: 29,200 entered jobs, 21,800 of which were sustained. More than three quarters of the participants were in jobs three months later.
Let me outline what that figure of 400 in every constituency means in practical terms. Donna is now with the Accounts Commission; Michelle is now an air hostess; and the new deal for musicians lets young Scots set up their own record companies. As we celebrated the 250,000 jobs created by the new deal, it all seemed easy, so the organisers of the event took us back to the very beginning.
Three years ago this week, the first adverts for the new deal appeared on Scottish Television and Grampian Television and featured a man called Jack Hendry of Dundee Travel urging employers to sign up to the scheme. He said that people would think that the first employer to sign up was mad, that the second one to sign up was rather sad and that the third one to sign up was rather naive. Today, more than 11,000 Scottish employers are participating in the new deal. They are business people the length and breadth of the UK who were embarrassed to be part of a nation that for 20 years threw its youngsters on to the scrap heap and who have gone on to sign up people to the new deal. Three years ago, plenty of Jeremiahs said that there would never be full employment again. They were wrong.
I do not wish to be a Jeremiah. However, more than £5 billion of taxpayers' money has been poured into the UK-wide new deal. According to the Financial Times on 10 November, 80 per cent of the jobs that it created would have existed anyway. Is that not a matter of concern?
It is hardly a matter of concern that we are running the economy so successfully that there has been a boom in employment. However, it is clear that, since Annabel Goldie's party left power, the number of young people in Scotland who have been out of work for more than six months has been reduced by three quarters.
We do not stand alone in our crusade against unemployment, because it is not just the young who are benefiting. Unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest rate since 1972 and has been more than halved in every constituency in the land, and there are more Scots in work today than at any point in my life. That highlights the sound economic management by Westminster and Edinburgh, which is delivering for Scotland. The nation is no longer paying the bills of failure; however, too many Scots are still paying the personal price of Tory failure, which is why the mission of my department and the purpose of this framework is to make every Scot job ready for tomorrow's jobs.
That does not happen by accident. Annabel Goldie mentioned tax; taxing the windfall profits of the major utilities made the new deal possible and both the Conservative party and the SNP stood aside from that measure. Not only has the windfall tax enabled us to introduce the new deal, but we have been able to invest in transport and pioneer new innovative financial instruments to do so. We have been able to demand fairness at work, to extend access to universities and to improve student support. Each of those measures is about creating opportunity for all.
On St Andrew's day, we can be proud that we are winning the battle for employment in places and for people who have been forgotten for too long. However, beyond the battle for employment is the battle for enterprise for all, which starts with opportunity for all. The level playing field was mentioned during question time. However, the issue is not just about a level playing field for access to nurseries, warm homes or universities; it is about a level playing field for access to ambition, self-confidence and self-belief.
This morning in Glasgow, we were not just celebrating the new deal. With Scottish Enterprise, we launched a project to get youngsters from all backgrounds into enterprise. The next challenge for us is enterprise for all.
If a level playing field is so important, why will those youngsters pay higher business rates than they would in any other region of the UK when they get into work?
As someone said, that is rather a cheap point. I struggle to think that some of the entrepreneurs—
Answer the question.
Let me make my point. If we ask youngsters what gives them self-confidence, the first thing that will spring to their lips will not be the taxation system of the time, but whether we can give them the self-confidence to succeed.
Three years ago, I attended the inaugural meeting of the Scottish Business Forum, which was also held in Glasgow. One of Scotland's leading bankers said that the reason why there are fewer business start-ups in Scotland is that too many people still live in council houses and cannot borrow the money to start up a business against the collateral of their house.
Three years later, I do not think that we will hear those statements. In the new Scotland that this partnership Government is creating, young people know that they have the chance to succeed. Let us consider the generation of entrepreneurs who are making it in Scottish business today: Richard Emmanuel in phones; Chris Gorman in web design; and Michele Mone in lingerie—bras and knickers to the rest of us. None of those people went to business school or started with a silver spoon. Chris talks of working in Fine Fare and Michele had a Saturday job in a Glasgow fruiterer's. They want other young Scots to believe in themselves. They succeeded and they know that others can do so; it does not depend on where someone grew up.
Scotland will succeed because we will create a level playing field. We must nurture self-confidence and self-esteem. Self-confidence is not about the flag someone waves, but about the work that they do and the commitment that they have. We must do more.
Today, when unemployment in Scotland falls, the start-up rate for small businesses also falls. We have to change all that for ever, which means that politicians must be willing to change. The Opposition parties cannot defend the old world while wishing the new world into existence. They cannot say that they are for growth but against new ways of investment.
When we came to power, we knew that we were probably the last generation of politicians who would be able to say to ordinary Scots that they should stick with a publicly funded health and education service to get the best education and treatment in the world. The underfunding and destruction of those services was so real that people began to believe that they should buy their way out of the system. We made the tough decisions. We have put all additional resources into employing new doctors, nurses and teachers, and we have not stopped there. We have said that we will also improve the public infrastructure by new means of investment. That is what the framework for economic development is all about. It is about making the tough decisions to deliver higher standards of living for the people of Scotland.
I am nervous that today's debate will contain a lot of hot air—the ritual denunciations and wish lists—when, for all of us, the challenge is how to win the economic race. It is in that spirit that I say to colleagues that I accept the amendment that calls for the measurement of results. It is absolutely right that we must get better at measuring our results.
I endorse whole-heartedly the sentiment that is contained in the SNP's amendment: we need to invest in our skills and our digital infrastructure. However, that amendment then "insists" that we find more money; members will not be surprised to find that it does not contain a word about where that money will come from. I agree with the SNP's priorities, but SNP members should come into the real world and tell us where we should take that money from.
This framework is about equipping Scotland to win in the new world of tomorrow and I invite all members to join the Executive in that challenge.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication of Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland; agrees with the clear aspirations for the Scottish economy which it sets out; agrees that for future economic success and prosperity, Scotland needs to improve productivity, its capacity for learning and innovation and transform its technology base, and that the Framework provides a basis for the joined up economic decision-making which is vital, and welcomes the work being done in partnership with all the key players in the Scottish economy towards achieving the Framework's vision.
The nationalist party supports the framework document. I have no difficulty in saying that, although I was rather disappointed with the tone that the minister adopted. Not only do we support the Executive motion, but we are fully supportive of the Tories' amendment. We had hoped that the minister would find it possible to accept our amendment, especially in the light of an article by the First Minister in The Herald today. He says:
"Above all, there are two imperatives that are particularly key to Scotland's success in the global economy . . . One of these is no surprise: education."
He then states that the second priority is delivery of "the e-commerce ethos".
I made it clear that we endorse the sentiment of the SNP motion, but the motion "insists" on new investment. I invite the member to specify where that new investment should come from.
If we want to prioritise those areas, we must invest and make the resources available, but that is a judgment to be made once the budgets are out. Like the First Minister, we are saying that those are the two key matters.
At the start of the new millennium and with a new Scottish Parliament, it is the duty of all members to contribute to and work towards a comprehensive economic development strategy, not just for one term of government, but for a generation. In the latter part of the 20th century, the United Kingdom laboured under short-termism and stop-startism. Governments came and went and, even within Governments, ideas and directions were invoked and dispensed with. That is not an argument against change or innovation, but a call for stability and balance. At the start of the new century, and with the commencement of our new Parliament, now is the time to reject the errors of the old ways. We have the opportunity to learn from nations that practised a different method and reaped a better harvest, whether Scandinavia in the 1960s or Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s. There is a better way.
Governments will come and go in Scotland, but the fall of each Government should not mean the upheaval of a major reversal of policy or a massive change in direction. It is the democratic right of any Government to decide its priorities, but it is also the responsibility of any Government to take cognisance of the national interest. Within the framework of the new Scottish Parliament, we have an opportunity to replicate the social and economic growth of Scandinavia and Ireland, which was based on parliamentary consensus on the national interest and on the general direction that the nation should take. Governments will still decide their priorities, but the ship will be steered with a steady hand on the tiller and on a steady course of economic stability. That is not just desirable, but essential.
What is the role of Government and what is the role of the strategy? The role of Government is to provide the framework and the facilities to allow individuals and businesses, indigenous or otherwise, to grow and expand in Scotland; to educate its people to ensure that the work force is available; to provide resources for research and development that can add value to and enhance commerce and industry; to provide the framework and infrastructure to allow our enterprises to compete; to provide assistance—financial or other—to add value to what business does; and, vitally, to sell Scotland abroad in every shape and form, in all economic areas and in all appropriate markets.
What needs to be done? First, we must recognise that Scotland needs to run to catch up. We lag behind and are in danger of falling further behind. No one in this brave new world owes Scotland a living. If we are to prevent an ever-increasing number of people from receiving a giro of ever-diminishing value, we must build the base on which to progress.
We have intimated our support for a strategy and a philosophy. Now it is time to turn to the practical requirements—education and infrastructure. That is not a mantra; it is an absolute necessity. We must invest in those areas to compete. They are the areas that we must prioritise and in which we must deliver. I will spend some time on each of them.
Infrastructure falls into two parts: transport and telecommunications. Our transport network, whatever mode, is woefully inadequate. I do not want to use this debate for political point scoring. Accordingly, I will say merely that, given our geographic peripherality, ease of communication is necessary for trade and commerce. We are distant from our markets and we have impediments inflicted on us, such as the high value of the pound and high fuel costs. We cannot, therefore, allow additional impediments through inferior infrastructure. We are paying the price of a generation of under-investment by British Governments, whatever their political hue. In Scotland, we must prioritise transport infrastructure to wipe out the legacy left by the British and to create a future for the Scottish economy. We must allow our businesses to reach their markets easily, speedily and cheaply.
Telecommunications is the new infrastructure and it matters in the 21st century. It is as important as a completed A9, a constructed M74 or a railway that runs. However, on bandwidth and internet connectors, we are sadly lacking.
Before Mr MacAskill finishes this part of his speech, will he give us his model for investment? How much does he expect the central purse to put in? What leverage percentages does he seek? Where in the private sector should the money come from?
We cannot expect the private sector to do it all. British Telecom has made that quite clear. The Government at Westminster has received a bounty of approximately £22 billion from third-generation telecommunications licences. Should not that money at least in part be hypothecated to ensure that everybody in Scotland has access to something that should be liberated? The funds are there. We can use the money to develop our infrastructure or we can spend it. The SNP believes that it should be invested. BT expects that 66 per cent of Scotland's population will have access to asymmetric digital subscriber lines by 2002, yet the UK figure is 75 per cent. We must aspire to attain and go beyond the UK average. The tragedy is that rural Scotland, which should benefit the most, will receive the least. Far from being liberated by a new form of communication, people in rural Scotland will once again be imprisoned by their isolation. That must change. Ireland and Finland have stolen a march on us. We must invest and prioritise to catch up and compete.
Investment in education—in schools and throughout people's lives—must be a priority. At present, too many children leave school inadequately educated and inadequately skilled for the workplace. Ministers have denigrated the success of the Republic of Ireland; that is not only insulting but fallacious. It should be noted that the economic success of the Republic of Ireland was built on a base not of European handouts but of investment in education. A generation ago, the Irish recognised that their greatest resource was their people. They invested in them and now they call to their diaspora to return home. We must do likewise. We face a skills shortage in numerous sectors while we have substantial unemployment in far too many areas. We need to skill up Scotland. We need to train the hands that are idle to do the work that we need them to do. We cannot live in hope of a major factory being fabricated in Scotland—we face too much competition from the southern hemisphere and eastern Europe. We must skill up our people and the jobs will follow from within and without.
There must be a strategy, a philosophy and action. We must leave behind the British disease that afflicted us in the 20th century. We must look to small nations that blossomed while Scotland withered. Ireland has often been mentioned in that context, and we can learn from other nations as well. Scotland has a population akin to Finland's. Both countries are geographically isolated but, a generation ago, the Finnish people agreed a consensus, created a strategy and invested in education and infrastructure. They did not have the benefit of North sea oil off their shores, but they have delivered economic prosperity balanced by social responsibility. If we do likewise, we can create a small nation that is economically wealthy and socially just. That is the framework that we must follow. The Executive has its chance to prioritise and deliver. The jury is out.
I move amendment S1M-1405.2, to leave out "and that" and insert:
"and to that end insists that further investment is made in education and in the transport and electronic communications infrastructure to ensure that the aspirations of the framework document can be achieved; agrees that with such investment.".
Today's debate on the framework for economic development in Scotland is welcome and worth while. Not only does it give us an opportunity to debate the merits of the framework; it allows us to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of differing approaches to running the economy. All parties support the idea of a framework of some kind or another and, to that end, we support the principles of the motion. There is much to commend the framework and our amendment recognises that.
We welcome the notion of a framework and cautiously welcome the proposals. The reason why our support is given with a qualification is that, with respect, the Conservative party thinks that it understands the needs of the Scottish economy and I think that the business community would acknowledge that the Executive has still to prove that it understands that.
Supporting the framework is, in principle, simple, as it offers a reasonably sensible strategy for improving our economy, promotes a strong vision and offers strategic guidance for economic policy and the attainment of economic development throughout Scotland. The framework is aimed at eliminating duplication and ensuring value for money and is proactive in that it aims to enhance our knowledge of the Scottish economy. Naturally, we support all of that. However, our amendment makes two pleas: that the framework document should be rigorously reviewed; and that it should put the needs of the economy first. In business speak, we want measurement, priorities and response. That is what my party is about. We want businesses to flourish and our amendment proves that. We want the Executive to militate against the prospect of the framework becoming a vacuous and meaningless series of soundbites. That danger is obvious. I welcome the minister's indication of support for the amendment.
We want a document in which economic review stands out from technical mumbo jumbo. Strategies, frameworks and visions are all fine as long as there is substance behind the verbosity.
We want the Executive to put the needs of the economy first. Our vision is one of individuals being given back their freedom and not one of the Government taking it away. Conservatives would allow people to develop for themselves, as that is the only positive way in which to run an economy. Our record on that is proven. It may be unpalatable to record history, but the economy was revolutionised under a Conservative Government, which introduced privatisation and deregulation, giving us the modern economy that we are now debating.
Many of the statistics on which the minister based her argument came into being not just within the past three years; they were there many years before, under a Conservative Government. We presided over an economy in which 90 per cent of the population benefited from a growth in wealth, and in which the remaining 10 per cent had no loss in income. The Economist of 25 November 1999 is my authority for that view.
The number of Scottish companies in the FTSE 100 index has more than doubled over the past decade; the number in the FTSE 250 has risen sixfold. That is because we believed in empowering companies to develop for themselves, instead of telling them how to do it. Two signal examples are Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power. Both those companies would not be where they are now if the Conservative party had not rolled back the frontiers of the state. We empowered individuals to think for themselves, but we were belittled by our political opponents for having the courage to take that view.
Our framework for economic development is very simple: to put the economy first and to cut red tape and bureaucracy. We also have to concentrate on a low-tax agenda. The party of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and her coalition Executive purport to support that view. In fact, the burden of taxation has increased from 35.2 per cent to 37.3 per cent under Labour. Business rates are higher in Scotland than they are in England.
The Executive's plans for the Scottish economy are flawed. The framework needs a stronger focus on business and a greater emphasis on scrutiny. The Conservative party is determined that what is essentially a good proposition, a proper framework for economic development, perhaps a sacred cow for the Scottish economy in the future, should not become its Trojan horse. That is why we lodged our amendment, which it is my pleasure to move.
I move amendment S1M-1405.1, to insert at end:
"but emphasises the importance of monitoring such activity in order that a meaningful response can be made to any negative outcome or trend."
It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, which has finally been secured at the third time of asking. I welcome the publication of "The Way Forward". There is a need for a national economic development strategy. In our manifesto, we in the Liberal Democrats committed ourselves to such a strategy, and the framework is the key milestone in the delivery of that policy.
During the investigation of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee into the delivery of economic development services in Scotland, virtually every organisation that gave evidence called on the Scottish Executive to set up an economic development strategy for Scotland. It was the main priority for the businesses that gave evidence to the committee, and they were adamant that an overarching economic strategy was vital to ensure that all organisations involved in trying to improve Scotland's economic performance were given a strong, powerful lead by the Executive.
The framework document has been warmly welcomed by representatives of the business community. I believe that that is because the document responded to the messages that they gave to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
In reference to the tributes given to the document by the business community, does George Lyon agree with Iain McMillan, the director of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland? He stated:
"The transport section, on first reading, is a bit self congratulatory. Quite frankly they have nothing to congratulate themselves about".
Selective quoting will always get some mileage, but the quotation taken as a whole was a welcome from the CBI.
Could George Lyon remind Bruce Crawford that the then convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is now the leader of the SNP—or did he forget that one?
I am quite sure that Bruce Crawford is aware of who his leader is; perhaps he is not happy about it.
Another issue that arose in the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's investigation was the lack of robust statistics on the Scottish economy. It is clear to us all that, if we are to measure the impact of the Scottish Executive's policies on developing the economy, we need a firm baseline of statistics from which to start. How on earth can we measure that impact without that solid baseline? I am glad that that problem has been recognised and addressed in the framework document.
Two key priorities are highlighted in the document: first, the strengthening of the basic education system; and secondly, the improvement of our electronics and transport infrastructures. It is right to concentrate on those areas. Mr MacAskill referred to the Irish example. According to the Irish, with some of whom I spent five or six days last year, the secret of their success is clearly education, and investment in their electronic infrastructure, but not in their transport infrastructure because at one time they did not have funds to do both.
The member says that the Irish accepted the need for investment in their electronic infrastructure. I take it that the Liberal Democrats will support our amendment, which calls for exactly that.
I do not think that we need to support the amendment, as the framework document says that we will invest in the electronic infrastructure.
The education system is fundamental. Globalisation and the competitive world economy mean that producing large numbers of well-educated students and a well-educated work force is essential to allow us to attract inward investment and encourage firms to set up in this country.
Investment in good communications infrastructure is a top priority. The result of Ireland's investment in its telecommunications infrastructure has been substantial growth. It is only now that Ireland is starting to invest in the physical infrastructure of road and rail.
Such investment has delivered for Ireland. I believe that by prioritising those two key areas, it should deliver for Scotland. The Scottish Executive has made a good start. More money is being poured into schools and a commitment has been given to lifelong learning. Tuition fees have been abolished, grants are being reintroduced through the graduate endowment scheme, and individual learning accounts have been established. Those measures should help to deliver the goods: a well-educated work force and a pool of skilled labour on which international firms relocating in this country could draw.
We need to invest more in our infrastructure. We need to do more in our rural areas, which are a key concern. Thankfully, we took substantial steps in the Highlands and Islands about 10 years ago, so there is a reasonable telecommunications network there, but it needs to be updated and to receive more investment. We must ensure that rural areas benefit from these opportunities.
Business has asked for an economic strategy for Scotland. The Lib Dems promised that in their manifesto. With this document, the Scottish Executive has started to deliver an economic blueprint for the future.
St Andrew's day is an appropriate occasion on which to take stock and hold a debate on the economic framework for Scotland. We should celebrate the fact that we have the lowest unemployment that there has been for decades, youth unemployment has been slashed by 73 per cent since October 1997, and we have the highest number of people in work since 1960. We can look forward and realise that full employment is now an achievable goal for all Scotland.
As a result of the review of economic development in Scotland, we have the most comprehensive assessment of economic development policy for a generation. It is published in "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland", which gives a long-term vision for Scotland and clearly sets out where we want to go. We want to be a small, vibrant and dynamic economy, which is globally competitive and has a highly skilled work force, and which can succeed throughout the 21st century. We want to use the opportunities of the new economy to create prosperity in every city and region of Scotland, from Shetland to the Borders.
It is becoming more crucial every day to get the people without jobs into the jobs without people. In Aberdeen, we have been fortunate to have had low unemployment for a long time, but there are still people in my constituency who cannot find jobs. In many of the areas that are covered by the local social inclusion partnership, unemployment is three times as high as it is elsewhere in the city. People in those areas are socially disadvantaged and do not have the skills and education that are required. There are problems that keep people in those areas out of the employment market. They may be too old—over 50. They may be women, particularly single parents, who seek more family-friendly policies and flexibility so that they can combine the needs of family life with employment. People with disabilities face particular difficulties in getting into the job market. That is true all across Scotland.
The minister's announcement today of the Scottish Enterprise initiative "Get into enterprise" is very welcome. It will build on the many other initiatives to help to get people into work: individual learning accounts, the Scottish University for Industry, the new futures fund, which helps particularly disadvantaged groups access training and employment, and the new deal, which in Scotland hit Labour's pre-election target on youth unemployment many months ago and has now reduced youth unemployment nationally by a quarter of a million. That was one of Labour's five key pledges.
The creation of a new labour market research unit will be essential in identifying skill shortages and in improving the quality and quantity of labour market information. For example, as many members know, the fish processing sector in Aberdeen is facing a major crisis because of the low cod stocks in the North sea. Because of poor regional data, one of the issues facing Aberdeen City Council and Scottish Enterprise Grampian is identifying accurately the number of fish processing workers in Aberdeen. It is estimated to be over 2,000. The new labour market research unit would be able to help with that.
Such information will allow better planning and ensure that we have the right kind of retraining and assistance where needed. It will also assist with skill shortages, which are appearing in many areas in Scotland. The oil and gas industry recently announced billions of pounds' worth of new investment in the UK, but it is facing a demographic crisis. Many of those in the offshore work force—some 30,000 workers—are due to retire over the next five to 10 years. The industry is having increasing difficulties in attracting people with the right kinds of skills and education. The people needed are living throughout Scotland, in the Borders, Glasgow and the Highlands. The framework that is now in place will help put together the conditions that we need to get the right skills to the right people.
Scotland is more vibrant and exciting now than has been the case for decades. The framework for economic development, together with record investment in education and encouragement of enterprise and innovation, will help develop a better and more prosperous future for Scotland.
There is broad consensus about the need for a national economic development strategy for Scotland and about many of the issues that we face. There are a number of strategic issues and challenges that we need to face up to and by which any economic development strategy or framework will be judged.
The Scottish economy today is not just the result of what has happened in the past few years; in many aspects, it is the result of trends over a century that we still need to deal with. One such trend is population change, which is an issue that has not usually been highlighted in economic discussion but which might have a fundamental effect on the future of the Scottish economy.
We are the only country other than Italy in western Europe that will suffer from a net reduction in population in the foreseeable future. One long-term forecast for the population in Scotland shows that our population could decline over the next 70 years to about 3.8 million people. Such depopulation would have a number of effects.
That forecast is due very largely to the fact that we are losing young people, whom we need to rebuild our industry and build the society of tomorrow. There are some years when 60 or 70 per cent of computer graduates from Scotland leave Scotland to get work. Last year, 45 per cent of all graduates left Scotland to get their first job. That is a very substantial bleeding of population—in terms of numbers and of the quality of the people and skills we need. The more general issue is that when there is depopulation, it can in itself become a major contributory factor to unemployment. As more people leave the country, they take with them the purchasing power needed to generate new jobs in the economy. If fewer jobs are generated, more depopulation follows. The danger arises of a spiral of depopulation feeding on unemployment and vice versa.
In the latest available figures, from the second quarter of this year, the percentage increase in gross domestic product in Scotland was around 2.1 per cent, whereas the UK figure was 3.2 per cent. In that quarter, the Scottish economy was growing, and that is welcome. However, the gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK in long-term output growth is such that, had we enjoyed the same rate of growth over the past 10 or 15 years as the rest of the UK has enjoyed, the Scottish economy would now be £7 billion or £8 billion a year bigger than it is. That would represent public sector investment of an extra £3 billion or £4 billion, with the balance in the rest of the economy. Closing that gap must be one of the measures of success of the framework for economic development.
The narrowness of our commercial and industrial base—in terms both of the sectors and of the companies—is an important issue. We rely on three or four sectors for about 75 per cent of all our exports from Scotland. That is too few eggs in one big basket. One company, Motorola, accounts for about 20 per cent of all our exports. That makes us vulnerable, and we need to address that by diversifying the base of the economy.
We need to boost research and development as a percentage of GDP. Our spend on research and development in industry as a percentage of GDP is about half the European average. If we are to compete in an expanding European market, we need to double our figure.
The final challenge that I want to talk about is investment. In the late 1970s, public sector investment represented about 7.5 per cent of GDP; it now represents about 0.2 per cent. Although the planned increase in investment over the next few years is welcome, it goes nowhere near meeting the challenge.
We must not underestimate the challenge of the expansion of the European Union. We have already lost investment to countries such as Poland. That trend will increase if we do not address the issue.
Last week, I asked the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning a question that highlighted the loss of what I thought was 86 jobs at the knitwear manufacturers Robertsons of Dumfries Ltd. I have since realised that I gave the minister wrong information; unfortunately, the company has gone into liquidation and all 121 jobs have been lost as we approach Christmas. We have also heard that the Nestlé factory in Dumfries will, before Christmas, close its doors for the last time. Over the past 18 months, 100 jobs have disappeared from that factory.
I do not mention all that because I am a new recruit to the doom and gloom brigade or the Jeremiahs; I mention it because what is happening in and to my constituency is happening elsewhere in Scotland. We have to face that. I believe that the framework document faces up to the realities in Scotland, especially in terms of the jobs that are being lost in the traditional industries as they change.
Mr MacAskill mentioned one particular topic, and I would like to quote to him from the document:
"there must be safeguards for those whose enterprises and jobs are lost, with a focus on the rapid reintegration of people into the workforce through the commitment to lifelong learning and the redevelopment of their skills".
In my constituency, at the same time as jobs are being lost in traditional industries, jobs are being created in the new industries. I was present when a German company named Tailgate recently announced an initial 120 jobs in a call centre. Such work is a new venture for that company in the UK. The jobs are being created at the Crichton University campus. It is projected that around 700 jobs might be created on that site. We will therefore have to address training issues: people are losing jobs in the traditional industries and a number of new industries, needing people, are moving in. In respect of the Tailgate jobs, I was especially pleased to hear of the collaboration between Dumfries and Galloway College and Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway to ensure that people were being trained.
What is happening in my constituency demonstrates why it is so important that we have a national strategy, which recognises the changing nature of employment in Scotland and the consequent requirement for training in order to match skills, people and jobs.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that the new deal has been more successful in Scotland than we expected. However, we must not be complacent, because other news is more disturbing, such as the report by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools on the weakness of science teaching in the five-to-14 curriculum. That will not help future opportunities in Scotland and I am sure that the Executive will act to address that deficiency.
One of the four objectives of the framework for economic development is
"regional development: ensuring that all regions of Scotland enjoy the same economic opportunities".
I want to make two points on that. We must address the fact that currently there is not equality of access to training and education throughout Scotland and that there are barriers of poverty, geographical access and access to electronic information. I do not dispute that the issues that the SNP raises are important, but I do not think that its amendment is necessary, because those points are highlighted in the document. There are issues for employees in small and medium-sized enterprises—often in rural areas, where there are more small enterprises and fewer very large ones. Smaller employers may not be able to offer their workers the training and skilling opportunities that larger employers can offer. That issue must be addressed.
When we talk about entrepreneurial dynamism and enterprise, we must recognise that there are many different models of employment in Scotland that provide financial security and personal fulfilment. Many Scottish people work in the public sector and increasing numbers work in the voluntary sector. People also work in co-operatives, in community enterprises or as self-employed individuals, supplying services and goods to others in their community. Not everyone wants to be a millionaire. Entrepreneurialism and a culture of enterprise must never be seen as equating to an individualistic philosophy of, "We are all capitalists now." Social responsibility and individual fulfilment within, and as part of, our community are absolutely necessary for—as it says in the document—
"the kind of society we would like to see in 5 to 10 years time".
Here we are in Scotland at the beginning of the 21st century, a small nation of 5 million people on the periphery of the continent of Europe. We are not doing too badly in economic terms, despite the many barriers in our way. We are doing okay, but that is not good enough if we want to prosper and compete effectively in tomorrow's global market. To prosper—not just to do okay or to survive—we must remove the barriers that hinder Scotland from achieving her full economic potential.
Scotland is putting herself at a competitive disadvantage because we are not as well connected, internally or internationally, as we should be. For Scotland to prosper, we need to improve radically the way in which we move our materials, goods and people. Without a first-class transport infrastructure, how can we expect to compete effectively in global markets?
The Confederation of British Industry Scotland has said that business in Scotland needs high-quality, free-flowing interurban roads; a high-quality Scotland-England transport corridor; good road and rail connections to Scottish ports and airports; and good access to ports and airports outside Scotland, including the channel tunnels. However, it was Lex Gold of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce who said recently that Scotland had a transport infrastructure akin to that of a third-world country. Comparing the ambition with the reality as seen through the eyes of business people makes depressing reading. The reality of Scotland today is that we still have many barriers to overcome in relation to transport.
Let us consider some of the starker examples. The M8 is a complete joke of a motorway—a two-lane shambles, which is not even constructed to motorway standard between Baillieston and Newhouse. The Forth road bridge has horrendous levels of congestion at peak times, which would be greatly eased by the upgrading of the A8000. In financial terms, that would need only a modest contribution, but the Executive would rather squabble with City of Edinburgh Council about who should take responsibility rather than just get on and get the job done.
Rural Scotland also faces severe problems in maintaining its road network, especially given some of the reductions in local authority funds for minor roads. For example, Highland Council has warned the Executive that on the basis of current resources, the fabric of the B roads in that area will deteriorate to the extent that some might face closure on safety grounds.
As far as the railways are concerned, the least said, the better is probably the view of the Minister for Transport. Unfortunately for the minister, she has no real powers to act when it comes to Scotland's railways. The minister can talk a good game, but she has no real clout when it comes to issues of funding rail infrastructure—no real clout, and no guarantee on funding.
To enable our nation to prosper and overcome barriers, investment from the Executive at levels not seen in Scotland will have to be achieved. For the moment, the Executive has allocated £1.27 billion over the next three years to transport. Yet in May this year, John Prescott announced a massive expenditure of £180 billion for the 10-year period to 2010. To ensure that Scotland prospers, is not it time to transfer the powers over rail, air and shipping that currently rest with the UK Government to the Scottish Executive, and use those powers to spend Scotland's £18 billion share of Prescott's treasure chest in Scotland on Scotland's priorities?
If members believe in Scotland and its future economic prosperity, they must believe that the Parliament needs to have within its remit the powers stretching across the entire transport arena, together with the wherewithal to get the job done.
I welcome the strategy, but I am always concerned by diagrams. Exactly what an
"Iterative process of defining approach"
is, as shown in the diagram on page 82 of "The Way Forward", is beyond me.
It is important to look at the role of government. The document does not fully address either the role of government as an external factor or the role of government as part of the economy. In large tranches of Scotland, particularly in rural Scotland, the south and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic's constituency, government in its various forms—the health service and local government—is a fundamental economic actor. We have to recognise that. When the framework is being drawn up and various other initiatives are taking place, we have to realise that those organisations are a much greater part of the process. In developing an e-Scotland, we have to break down the distinction between e-government and e-business, because they are, and should be, one and the same.
I am always keen to examine overseas examples, although our friends in the SNP always cite examples of countries. There are good examples in states in the United States. I am a bit nervous of the Finnish example, because to have two thirds of a country's gross domestic product in one company, as is the case with Nokia, is not as good an idea as it might seem. I commend what has happened in Finland, but there are problems in that country.
I recently visited Virginia in the United States, where there has been a strategic approach to tackling rural development, and the public sector, be it health services, universities or whatever, has addressed its own role. It has created a demand relative to its own needs, for example, for telecommunications infrastructure, and it has used its global leverage to improve the network there. The interesting fact is that in the United States, if people are given the same, or roughly the same, income opportunity in a rural area as in an urban area, they are beginning to see a migration of people back from conurbations into rural areas. However, to do that they must have access to the appropriate infrastructure, to allow them to maintain their incomes.
I am absolutely committed to wiring up Scotland. The Government has a strategic role, which I believe—this is not necessarily the view of the Conservative party—needs to go a bit further. I do not kid myself that that is an easy task. For example, stocks in the telecommunications and technology sector are at some of their lowest levels for years. Companies such as Scottish Telecom, which is now called Thus, BT and ntl do not have the money swilling around that they might have had a few years ago. They must be engaged if we are to get the investment into the infrastructure.
My final point concerns engagement with business. Yet again, the names of a few business leaders were trotted out in the minister's opening speech. Every time that a business leader agrees with something that the Government says, their name is trotted out. We do not engage in the necessary mature discussions with business. We must take what we do not like in what businesses say and also what is constructive in what they say. We must engage and connect more maturely with business in Scotland if we are to proceed on the way forward, in line with the title of the document.
I will concentrate my remarks on the regional objectives section of the framework document, on pages 64 to 67. The document says:
"There are three regional issues of importance",
of which the first is spreading the economic strengths of some regions to other sub-national economies. The second is the deployment of
"various instruments of economic development"
to promote sub-national economies that are doing less well. The third is population issues.
On the first point, I trust that ministers will confirm that the Executive's policy is to ensure that sub-national economies throughout Scotland can draw some of the economic growth from those that are doing very well indeed. The framework talks about changing perceptions, such as the old adage that the east prospers while the west struggles. The situation is more complicated than that. There are performance differences within regions and even within industrial sectors in some sub-national economies. The picture is not clear.
The parts of Scotland that are doing well and where the pressure of overheating is obvious can shed some of that overheating to other areas. Members throughout the chamber will be able to give examples. I invite the minister to consider the south of Scotland. The obvious advantage is that it could absorb some of the population and development pressures from the Edinburgh conurbation to the mutual benefit of both parts of Scotland.
The minister talked about level playing fields. We need to address some of the inequalities in the deployment of the various instruments of economic development. For example, if accessibility to and from the south of Scotland is to be enhanced, it will require direct public investment in roads, rail and telecommunications. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that infrastructure projects—even soft ones such as telecommunications—are not included in the south of Scotland objective 2 programme. If we are talking about level playing fields, the new European funds will deliver £194 million to the Highlands and Islands—£526 per head of population—whereas the objective 2 programme in the south of Scotland is only £42 million, or £174 per head of population.
I welcome the emphasis on opportunities in the document—that important point is made in the regional objectives section. Of course, we need to strike a balance between need and opportunity. Ministers must back opportunity where, even at first glance, need may be less obvious. For example, my constituency has lower levels of recorded unemployment than the national average, with, unfortunately, one or two significant exceptions. However, that is because one of our major exports is our young people, particularly those who enter the professions and high-skills, high-technology industries. I am sure that that is also the case in other constituencies in Scotland. My part of the world could support considerable economic development and appropriate diversification of our economic base, which would prevent the progressive aging of the population and, at the same time, help to reduce overheating in Edinburgh and the Lothians. There are opportunities that can be grasped and I welcome the framework's general approach, although I want to see how that approach is played out in practice.
I want to make a final point about the textiles industry, which is not a sunset industry, although the document suggests that that image of the industry still lurks in the recesses of the civil service and the enterprise and lifelong learning department. It is not a sunset industry because parts of it are doing immensely well. The cashmere industry, in particular, is a major export earner. A skills crisis is shortly to emerge in parts of the textiles and knitwear industry—that crisis will need to be addressed. I hope that, when the minister comes to see us on 31 January, she will have the opportunity of understanding those problems at first hand.
Any framework for economic development at the beginning of the 21st century must give due cognisance to the fact that future development will be based on e-business and e-commerce, both of which will grow from the knowledge society. I am heartened by the emphasis placed on that by both the framework and the minister's opening comments, and I will re-emphasise the importance of that in my speech.
Recently, Robert Crawford, who is the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, said:
"E-commerce is the most profound economic development since the industrial revolution and it must be embraced before the challenges become threats."
I fear that we may be approaching the level of threat if we do not do something soon.
I was at Scottish Enterprise's annual meeting in August this year, at which Professor Jim Norton, from the Institute of Directors, produced some fascinating statistics on growth in e-business around the world. I will introduce another country into the debate, as Jim Norton told us that Norway was the world leader in e-business—not the United States but Norway, which is the same size as Scotland and which is on the geographical periphery, just like Scotland. I ask ministers whether Scotland can emulate Norway and whether the framework will put Scotland in front, instead of playing catch-up.
We must consider what the Government has done in two crucial areas over the past 18 months. I bring members back to digital Scotland, which is an area that I constantly mention in debates in the Parliament. I make no apology for that. If we do not achieve digital Scotland, we will not do e-business this year, next year or in 10 years' time. I remind the chamber that we debated digital Scotland more than a year ago. Six months later, in May 2000, a task force report on digital Scotland was published. Four months later, on 14 September, we had the Executive's response to the digital Scotland task force report: the Executive agreed to all 68 recommendations.
But where are we, what have we done and what has the Government achieved a year after the debate? Even the framework document mentions broadband provision, when it says:
"There is already a consensus that investment in high quality broadband telecommunications throughout Scotland would be an important contributor to the building of a knowledge-based economy."
But where is that broadband provision? Where is Scotland's direct access to the north Atlantic cable, which would allow broadband communications throughout Scotland? The south-east of England has such direct access, but Scotland does not. Where is the feasibility study into broadband communications for Scottish schools? That study was due to be published at the end of September, but we have heard nothing. It goes on and on. We must ensure that we achieve and do not just talk. We have a wonderful glossy document, but we need the action and we cannot keep waiting for it.
One of the key points that the digital Scotland task force and the knowledge economy action group talked about was leadership for digital Scotland and for the e-economy. They talked about energetic leadership and about appointing a Scottish e-envoy and a Scottish Cabinet minister for the information age strategy. I refer the minister to recommendation 17 of the digital Scotland task force report. Where is that person? Where is the leadership?
Without wanting to get too personal, Peter Peacock has been the minister responsible for digital Scotland. If we were conducting a performance review and were measuring Peter's application to digital Scotland in the past year, we would have to question his results. Where is the action plan that the EU said that we should have produced by June 1999? We need action and we need it now.
In closing, I was going to say to Wendy Alexander, "Wendy, we need action and I hope you'll lead it." However, given her responses to some of the questions that were put to her earlier, I am very disappointed that our minister is someone who thinks that three months' work is sustainable employment for young people and that words, not funding, are the way of achieving an e-Scotland.
For the first time, this document brings together the Executive's economic development policy and its social justice agenda. That is vitally important because, in the past, Scottish Enterprise has seen its role essentially as a business support agency. I believe that it did not take social inclusion sufficiently seriously and the objectives that it was allowed to set for itself were dictated by its often rather esoteric projections of economic trends and by the business interests that predominated on its board.
In endorsing the framework document in The Herald this morning, the First Minister said:
"We need to push ahead on the broad front of economic and social issues that are important for the long term".
I completely agree with that diagnosis, but appropriate solutions can be found only if, as Henry McLeish suggests, we take a radical and searching look at what the people of Scotland need and how it can be delivered more effectively.
Until now, Scottish Enterprise has defined its role too narrowly in terms of economic development, while other agencies more in touch with realities on the ground, including some of the local enterprise companies, have concerned themselves with social and economic cohesion. That has to change if we are to take advantage of the jobs that are being created in the economy as a vehicle for ending poverty and disadvantage.
It is crucial that the co-ordinating agency for economic development accepts responsibility for delivering across the whole agenda mapped out in this document and seeks to target resources to achieve that rather than to achieve purely business-directed ends. The minister announced that new deal policies have brought about significant reductions in official levels of unemployment. Those are real achievements and there are some spectacular falls in claimant unemployment, which has been halved in every Scottish constituency. However, as statistics make clear, labour participation rates for Scotland are running at 75 per cent of the eligible population. In the west of Scotland, the participation rate is currently 67 per cent; in Glasgow, it is around 60 per cent.
If we want to make a real difference, we must target not only those designated as unemployed, but the missing 30 per cent who do not show up in unemployment statistics in the poorer areas of Scotland. Those who are on incapacity and disability benefits, single parents, people who have taken early retirement and the large pool of potential women returners who do not claim job seekers allowance are among the groups that must be helped into work or helped to acquire new skills. I believe that that task is vital for our economic prosperity.
Denmark and the Netherlands have already recognised, from studying demographic and social trends, that it is no good simply trying to generate new jobs. We have to provide education and training to develop the skills of the people we have, and we must provide support where necessary to enable them to participate. Social inclusion is every bit as central to our economic success as knowledge management is, despite the fact that Scottish Enterprise is lavishing such a large share of its budget on the latter.
I would like to ask the minister for more information about the work being done by Scottish Executive officials, by Scottish Enterprise and by others on strategies for increasing participation rates, especially in the west of Scotland, among those who are currently neither in employment nor registered unemployed. What priority will be given to funding delivery mechanisms that will address the needs of that group of people in particular?
E-commerce is important and so is knowledge management, but it is important to consider the needs of the people we want to work. It is very important that we pay attention to manufacturing, which has a vital part to play in securing Scotland's future. There is a gap in the document when it comes to manufacturing.
Last week I attended a meeting, hosted by the minister, with trade union representatives from the Kvaerner Clydebank factory—the famous John Brown Engineering, as great a name as any in the annals of Scottish achievers. The workers at that plant are internationally recognised for their skills and inventiveness. At the meeting it was clear, as it has been for months, that there was demand from the largest company in the world for the work that they produce, the quality of which GE is unable to match in plants elsewhere in the world. However, Kvaerner has pulled the plug on Clydebank, possibly bringing to an end a century of Scottish engineering excellence.
I am grateful to the minister for the efforts that she is making to retain those jobs for Clydebank and to secure the remaining jobs in the service division, which was taken over by GE. It is a disgrace that here we may lose not low-paid, low-skills jobs, but manufacturing jobs that a modern, dynamic, forward-looking economy should be working hard to sustain.
We need not just electronic business and a knowledge economy, but a secure and effective manufacturing base. I hope that in future the people who are responsible for running the Scottish economy—both the minister and Scottish Enterprise, which has a vital role to play—will pay attention to the requirements of manufacturing.
We now move to closing speeches. I call Jamie Stone to wind up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
We have heard mention of Clydebank and of Glasgow, quite rightly. It will come as no surprise to members that I want to dwell on the Highlands, particularly the north Highlands.
As the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Gaelic will know, the counties of Caithness and Sutherland have a declining population. People are leaving those areas. Young people, in particular, are moving out. The situation is rather like the one that Euan Robson outlined. Young people are going to Inverness and further south. That is one of the reasons why Inverness is growing exponentially in population, turnover and number of businesses. However, far to the north of Inverness the story is very different.
Despite the best efforts of the Executive and the enterprise network, our straths and glens are continuing to empty. In Wick, east Caithness, Lairg in Sutherland—perhaps the whole of east Sutherland—and the seaboard villages of Easter Ross there is a sad situation. Those communities are feeling the wind—I do not mince my words.
Members would be surprised by how old, on average, are the people who attend the Lairg sale, the biggest lamb sale in Britain. Young people are not going into crofting. If they see an opportunity to get a job in Inverness, Glasgow or Edinburgh, they will head away. I am afraid that something of the clearances is still with us, even in the face of the best efforts of the Executive. I shall return to that.
It is not all doom and gloom. Massive efforts have been made. I compliment the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Gaelic on his work on Barmac and his attempts to get orders back to the north Highlands, where the oil fabrication industry is very important. Work was also put in to save Hunters of Brora, albeit with a smaller work force than it had previously. Again, that has been a success story. The point is that in very remote areas three, four, a dozen or two dozen jobs can make all the difference between a community surviving in a strath or disappearing for ever.
David Mundell will recall that this morning I spoke about problems resulting from the strength of the pound and high interest rates. That is why people in the Highlands embrace Europe. They see the European Union and everything that it offers as our salvation. We can only go forward by selling products to the European market.
I am grateful to those members who mentioned the Highlands, if only in passing. Bruce Crawford referred to the state of the roads. This afternoon we have had a very consensual debate. If the front-bench spokesmen for the Scottish nationalists and the Conservative party are able, I would like them to commit themselves to supporting the remoter parts of the Highlands. People must not forget about us—we are the man on Scotland's conscience.
Wendy Alexander spoke about enterprise for all, employment for all and a level playing field. We have some way still to go on that one in the far north. I know that Mr Morrison and Ms Alexander realise that; I am grateful for that.
Annabel Goldie, in her amendment, quite rightly suggests a kind of audit. When the ministers do that audit, could they look at the part of the balance sheet that is the Highlands and say how we are getting on?
We have much to offer. One thinks of the excellent work that is being done on the University of the Highlands and Islands. It is a partnership commitment; indeed, every political party is signed up to it and it can help.
We have seen a great deal of the European structural funding that has come to the Highlands—Dr Ewing will know this—go to the Inverness area and other parts of the Highlands, but for reasons that are not clear certain parts, such as the far north, have missed out. It has not received as great a proportion of the funding as it should have done. That has underpinned some of the structural problems that we have across the Highlands and is why we have the variation whereby Wick is feeling the wind very badly, but Inverness is not. We must tackle that.
We have fine schools, some of the best in the country. We have the idea of the Highland brand. Thank goodness, if we say that something is Highland—perhaps it does not include MSPs—it means very good. We think of whisky, quality products and a clean environment.
We have talked about tourism. It would be tragic if the tourists eventually come to the Highlands in greater numbers and find the glens empty. It is as simple as this: a lot of members who are not from the Highlands have Highland surnames. Malcolm Chisholm was in the chamber—his forebears must have come from Inverness-shire. Those members are living examples of people whose forebears left the Highlands. We must turn that back.
I make great play of this matter, especially as my new job is spokesman for the Highlands and Islands and fishing. It is a matter to which I will return, perhaps in a members' debate.
On Jamie Stone's last comment about the Highland clearances, I remind him that we held all of Glen Truim in the Black Isle, until somebody stole it from us.
In welcoming the debate today, I must thank Wendy Alexander for her gracious acceptance of the Conservative amendment, although I found the debate disappointing. I am sorry to say that, but it was dull in parts. There should have been some excitement and leadership.
The framework document has been well read by everyone in Scotland. We must talk today about a different issue, not about the model as it is written down but about how we will deliver its proposals in Scotland, how we will engage people in the discussion and where leadership will come from. I hope that Alasdair Morrison—when he has finished tying his shoelace—will tell us at the end of the debate how we will get the stimulus and leadership that we need in Scotland from the Executive.
Wendy Alexander made a poor start by using the new deal as a good example. The new deal is a moribund exercise, which has continued for three years without a review. As my colleague Annabel Goldie said, the issue today is constant review and monitoring. We got a nice new definition of infrastructure from Wendy Alexander, which equated—the way I heard it—to bras and knickers. I thought that that was rather sexist; I wonder what she has in mind for the men.
Every party in the chamber has mentioned investment in transport. I accept Jamie Stone's comments about investment in the infrastructure in all parts of the country. The minister talked about investment in transportation. I wonder whether she could tell her deputy minister to respond and give us an answer to this question. Does she have any influence with the Minister for Transport, who has deaf ears as far as the vital infrastructure requirements of the north-east of Scotland are concerned, whether on the Montrose bridge or the Aberdeen bypass? We could come up with a host of requirements.
The review said that the greatest economic driver was the private sector. As I said, we must engage with that sector. The nationalist opening speaker, Kenny MacAskill, seemed to carp that we can get goodness only from a public sector organisation. The balance needs to be changed—we need a partnership and it did not come across that Kenny wants that. I am sorry about that.
The private sector will invest only if conditions are right. That goes back to Wendy Alexander's comments about burning piles of regulations. Jeremy Peat said that we need a bonfire of regulations and I would like to hear what the minister is going to do about that. We heard comments about the need for that to happen, but how and when will it happen?
My colleagues have mentioned taxation and other members in the chamber have talked about the skills base. Is the school education system coping? Is it giving pupils enough to get them into a training scheme and to take them further towards employment? There must be clear links between schools and the further and higher education sectors. A member mentioned the lack of monitoring and knowledge about the base from which we start. Why are not we using the university sector to undertake constant monitoring of the various sectors in a dispassionate, academic way? I have talked to people from that sector and they are willing to do that work, but we need to tell them what we need to enable us to our job.
Members have also raised the issue of access to support so that young companies can survive and expand and get help with marketing and exporting. That issue is mentioned loosely throughout the document, but where is the action plan?
We have not addressed the Pareto effect—which Alex Neil mentioned—by which I mean that we put all our eggs in one basket by concentrating about 80 per cent of exports in only a few sectors, 20 per cent of them in one company alone, and receive a short-term return. Why do not we invest in indigenous companies instead of merely looking towards the inward investor? We need to have that discussion.
As for the delivery of support, no one has mentioned the economic forum. Many organisations are absolutely petrified that such forums will become overburdening talking shops that have a lack of focus and leadership. There is no need to put everybody in a sector on a board that will not agree about anything. We need clarity and an open mind about how we deliver economic development and support. That need not be done by the same organisation in every part of Scotland; one model does not fit all.
I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the minister will make it clear that there will be no more initiatives, and that he will spell out the targets that the Executive will set, how they will be monitored and how often Parliament will discuss how matters are progressing.
I call Duncan Hamilton to wind up for the SNP. You have up to five minutes.
I note the distinction of the phrase "up to five minutes", which means that I do not have to take that long if I do not wish to. However, I think that I will take the five minutes, if it is all the same to you.
I take this opportunity to close what has been a rather sleepy debate, although it has been constructive in tone. Every member in the chamber has signed up to the principle of a framework for economic development. However, the minister's opening speech was perhaps the only exception to that correct tone of debate; it struck a rather sour note, which she probably now regrets.
It has been interesting to watch the parties' various acrobatics as they tried not to support the SNP amendment. Ms Alexander engaged in all sorts of semantics over whether there would be investment or further investment.
Will the member give way?
No.
Indeed, on our point about the need for further investment, her leader said in The Herald:
"Clearly, therefore, we need to scale up our investment in people".
That suggests that Ms Alexander's own leader supports and advocates increased investment.
It was also interesting to hear that the Liberal Democrats and other members could not support our amendment because its contents were already included in the document. This is a new one on me—members not supporting an amendment because they agree with it. That seems an odd way of going about voting.
The SNP's priorities in the debate have been driven not by dogma or unyielding ideology towards public ownership, but by the needs and interests of the people who have contributed to the process. The priorities of transport, communication and education were outlined to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the Executive in submissions from the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. Although members will agree that such organisations are not nationalist banner-wavers, by that same token we should take their concerns very seriously.
Until Jamie Stone's intervention, I was struck by the absence of one crucial fact. As Mr Stone pointed out clearly, the framework is important only in the context of the country's macroeconomic stability. The point about the European aspect of the issue is worth taking on board. The document says that the framework must fulfil the key enabling objective of
"a stable and supportive macroeconomic environment"
to be successful. I would be interested to find out whether, in his summing-up, the minister considers the current high value of the pound and high level of interest rates as providing "stable and supportive macroeconomic" conditions.
I suspect that, if the Executive does as Mr Stone asks and looks to Europe, it will see that German interest rates have been much lower for longer, which has provided the stability that businesses would perhaps endorse.
It is also interesting to note the role that the Scottish Executive will play in that wider macroeconomic framework. On page 36, the document states:
"From a different perspective, there might be a need, where appropriate, to discuss with the UK Government how elements of its economic policies impact on the achievement of the Executive's vision."
I suggest that we need a bit more than that—it is much too timid. I want to see the Scottish Executive fighting for the Scottish interest and getting on the phone to Mr Brown and his colleagues south of the border to ask what they are going to do about the problems in the Scottish economy and how they can work together. That must happen not only where that is appropriate or when the Executive runs out of things on its to-do list—it must be a priority.
David Mundell and other members stressed the need to emphasise the importance of the internet and e-commerce and how that can be developed. Kenny MacAskill talked about the disparity between Scotland and England in access to ADSL—66 per cent by 2002 in Scotland; 75 per cent in the UK. That is important. The people who are missing out are those in the rural communities of Scotland—they need to have access to those global markets. If a system that delivers for all Scotland is to be a priority, the move towards e-commerce and improving internet access is vital.
Parliament must be willing to learn from other countries. A range of countries have been mentioned in the debate: Norway, Finland, Ireland, the United States, Denmark and Holland. If we are to be willing to learn, we must move away from talking down the achievements of others. The minister referred a few weeks ago during question time to the success of the Irish economy as being the result of "dollops of EU subsidy". That sort of statement does not help. There is a great deal in the Irish economy, and in the other economies that have been mentioned, from which we can learn. Until we get rid of our arrogance, we will not move the debate on.
The framework is important and has been agreed to by enterprise companies and most parties in Parliament. However, I ask the Government not to tell us about it any more or continue with the spin. In the words of one of the leading athletic sportswear manufacturers: "Just do it".
I am happy to respond on behalf of the Executive and I am delighted to announce that we will accept the amendment in Annabel Goldie's name.
"The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland" is an unprecedented and important document that sets the scene for long-term development of the Scottish economy, and, for the first time, offers a strategic overview. It is innovative, fresh and, above all, it learns from the lessons of the past and adds real value to our economic thinking and future policy.
The consultation was extensive and took in the views of all the important players in the economic development community, not only those of a selected few. I believe that there exists a considerable degree of consensus about the drivers of economic development and where the priorities are.
There is a clear understanding throughout the country that, to achieve future economic success and prosperity, Scotland must raise its game. With the development of the new economy and the pace of change in the global economy, it is vital that we have clear, modern aspirations for the Scottish economy and that we set out the big picture on which all our detailed economic decisions can draw—whether at national or local level.
The framework sets a new course for economic thinking and debate in Scotland. After all these years, it would be a mistake to pretend that we can be prescriptive. This is a serious project that needs to be built up from the foundations. We have set out the big picture for the Scottish economy and put in place the building blocks for policy making, which will lead to economic success and prosperity. Now we need to act quickly. The policy developments that Wendy Alexander has outlined are testimony to the fact that the framework has already made a tangible impact on thinking in the Executive.
Economic activity must generate sufficient opportunities, so that the commitment to full employment in Scotland—in the modern sense, of high and stable levels of employment, through the promotion of employment opportunities for all—can be met. That would be a considerable achievement.
It is central to our economic vision to stimulate action to secure our growth and equity objectives. To put it another way, we want to accelerate economic growth, but we are also fundamentally concerned about the quality of economic growth. We must have growth that is socially just and sustainable, because it embraces all the people of Scotland, including those in geographically peripheral areas or those in peripheral sections of society.
Economic opportunities must be accessible to all and they must be sustainable. Sustainability ensures that our vision takes account not only of the interests of the current generation, but of those of future generations. That means that we must always look ahead and that the opportunities, costs and benefits of economic activity must be relevant to all generations and not merely to those with a short-term horizon.
I turn now to some of the remarks that were made during the debate. I regret the situation that Elaine Murray described in her constituency. She made exceptionally valid points about safeguarding the position of those who lose jobs in traditional industries. It is vital that people have the opportunity to retrain so that we can help to ease them back into the labour market. Elaine Murray was absolutely right to reflect on the success of the new deal. As Wendy Alexander outlined, since the new deal scheme began, 29,200 young people have gone into jobs, of which 21,800 were sustained. That means that 80 per cent of those people are now in unsubsidised employment. Elaine Murray mentioned the potential that is being realised on the Crichton campus. She will be delighted to learn that my colleague, Wendy Alexander, will visit that campus next week.
George Lyon referred to the need for appropriate statistics on the Scottish economy. I assure Mr Lyon that the Executive has in place a programme for the development of Scottish economic statistics, which forms part of the overall Scottish Executive's plan for national statistics. That plan will be published in February next year.
My fellow Highlander, Jamie Stone, made a number of valid points as usual, but I am thankful that he did not mention the dairy industry. As he pointed out rightly, the Highlands have much to offer. There are difficulties and challenges, which we will overcome. Jamie Stone also mentioned the importance of the University of the Highlands and Islands project, which Wendy Alexander is tackling aggressively. She takes an active and interested role in furthering people's expectations of the University of the Highlands and Islands.
David Mundell was right to cite international examples of the e-revolution. I contest what Fiona McLeod said about my eminent colleague, Peter Peacock. Wendy Alexander will build on the excellent work that was initiated by Peter Peacock. We recognise the importance of e-commerce and digital Scotland, which are firmly ensconced in our department.
The Executive is committed firmly to the development of the internet revolution. As everybody appreciates, digital infrastructure is a national issue. We are in discussion with enterprise agencies and the telecoms companies to map potential demand for such services and to discuss the need for a national strategy.
I turn now to Mr Kenny MacAskill. In her opening remarks, Wendy Alexander prophesied that we would have the usual ritual denunciations. What she should have said is that we would have the usual eulogy to the Celtic tiger. Not once did Mr MacAskill cite where additional resources would come from, and I waited in earnest for Duncan Hamilton to outline where the money would come from. I recall that Mr MacAskill was the man who, one balmy afternoon in the chamber, pledged £800 million for Scotland's roads. He talked about Ireland stealing a march on infrastructure. That is absolute and complete nonsense; he was speaking about a country that has something like 75 miles of dual carriageway. Again, Mr MacAskill was roaring about the Celtic tiger.
In closing, I want to emphasise that the framework is a real sign of the advancement in thinking that devolution always promised; it is an example of devolution making a difference to the lives of the people of Scotland.
For the first time, a comprehensive economic vision for Scotland is set out. It details the philosophy and principles that underlie the Executive's approach to the economy. It considers what the global challenges entail and sets out the Executive's thinking on how that challenge must be addressed. It embraces activity across a spectrum of the Executive's work and is a true example of joined-up thinking. I believe that it can help us take advantage of the economic opportunities that are essential in raising the quality of life of all Scottish people.