Scottish Parliament, 24 February 2011

366 contributions from 77 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business this morning is consideration of business motion S3M-7990, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 of the Patient Rights (Scotland) Bill. If any member wishes to speak against the motion, they should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Patient Rights (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the Stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 and 2: 20 minutes

Groups 3 to 6: 40 minutes

Groups 7 and 8: 1 hour 5 minutes.—[Bruce Crawford.]

Mr Kelly has pressed his button, but I assume that he does not wish to speak against the motion.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

No.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That was just pre-empting the next item of business, I think.

The question is, that motion S3M-7990, in the name of Bruce Crawford, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Regeneration

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7992, in the name of Johann Lamont, on regeneration. Mr Kelly and others who wish to speak in the debate are now welcome to press their request-to-speak buttons.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will explain my rather dishevelled look this morning and the stubble on my face: when I was playing football at the weekend, I took an elbow in my top lip. Fortunately, it was a constituent who did it, so I expect a bit of a sympathy vote in the election in May, that is for sure.

I take great pleasure in opening this debate on behalf of the Labour Party. Our debate focuses on the role of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in transforming some of the most deprived communities in Scotland and on the priority that the Scottish Government gives to regeneration more widely. We seek clarity from the Scottish Government on the approach that it intends to take to regeneration more widely and the future funding arrangements for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. I will say a bit more about that later. I will focus much of my speech on the trust and the work that it has done in various communities that are represented by various members. I will also talk about the many challenges that still exist in communities, even though we have been trying to tackle them for the best part of 12 or 13 years.

We need to be clear about the important role of Government—not just the Scottish Government, but the United Kingdom Government—in supporting the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Support from Government is fundamental to its work. The trust was established in 1999 and, as I said, it is supported by the UK and Scottish Governments. It is independent, and much of its activity complements other work to tackle the challenges in coalfield communities.

The Coalfields Regeneration Trust website is a valuable place to visit. Members who did not do so before the debate should look at it to find out about the trust’s activity in Scotland. The front page of the website contains a good quote from the former Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, who said:

“I am confident that as a respected player in the regeneration field and among communities, the CRT will continue to play a valuable role in helping to regenerate some of Scotland’s most deprived communities. In order to assist the trust to continue its work in Scotland, I am happy to confirm that the Scottish Government will continue to support it and will invest £4.726 million in it over the next three years.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; c 4046.]

That funding was announced in a members’ business debate. There was support from across the chamber for that, and there has been a lot of interest in the projects that have been taken forward over the past three years as a result of that funding. There is cross-party support for the trust’s work, as well as support from outside the Parliament. I am sure that many members have visited projects in their communities to find out at first hand what is happening on a day-to-day basis.

The decline of the coal industry in the 1980s scarred communities—beyond recognition in some cases—and the effort to improve life chances in those communities is still a work in progress. The challenge of regenerating them has not gone away and will remain, particularly given the current economic issues that we have to deal with, the wider problems as part of the recent recession and the recovery that we hope we will enter into shortly.

The economic problems that the country has faced have had an even more significant impact on coalfield communities, but the Scottish Government amendment would remove our call for a commitment to sustain the funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which is a concern. The amendment intimates that regeneration funding should be

“focused on job-creation activities that can contribute to the economic revival of these communities.”

That is a fair point, but we need specifics on exactly what will happen to Coalfields Regeneration Trust funding in the next three years.

Levels of unemployment are increasing at an alarming rate. I have figures that compare the current situation that communities face with the situation pre-recession, specifically on the number of workers who have been out of work for six months or more. The figure has increased by 223 per cent in Clackmannanshire, 68 per cent in East Ayrshire, 352 per cent in East Lothian, 115 per cent in Fife, 230 per cent in Midlothian, 228 per cent in North Lanarkshire, 293 per cent in South Lanarkshire and 175 per cent in West Lothian. The figures are even worse when we look only at young people in the 18-to-24 age group. The increase among that age group is 110 per cent in Clackmannanshire, 400 per cent in East Lothian, 575 per cent in Midlothian, 307 per cent in North Lanarkshire and 422 per cent in West Lothian.

Those figures are worrying and say to me that the work that has been done in the past few years needs to gather pace and focus on employment opportunities in those particular communities, because they are still suffering from the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s and they will continue to suffer from those recessions, and the more recent one, if work is not delivered specifically to them.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

John Park rightly argues for taking jobs into those key areas but, in the current difficult times, does workforce mobility also have a role? Given that a high proportion of young people go into further education, might it be more justifiable in some cases to encourage people to broaden their horizons?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Fundamentally, when we consider the opportunities that people in such communities need, we find that the issue initially is to provide them with skills. Some of those people are second or third generation economically inactive—their fathers and mothers and their grandparents have been out of work for some time. We cannot just grab them and move them somewhere else or say, “By the way, you can just go into another job, because we’ve given you specific skills.” Those people need help, which we cannot provide through a national project. They need specific local initiatives that are properly supported and which identify the real problems that those people and communities face. In many cases, that means giving people the basic skills to find employment in the first place. That has to be the focus, because funding for that, when properly directed, makes a difference.

I will come on to the figures that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has published and reports that it has produced on its work in making a difference in coalfield communities. However, I will first say a little about a project in my community that was the subject of a members’ business debate a few months ago: West Fife Enterprise. The project covers the coalfield communities of Oakley and Valleyfield in west Fife, which are surrounded by more affluent villages and towns. There is a challenge in integrating areas that need regeneration with other parts of Fife that are doing much better.

On Alex Johnstone’s point, I have seen at first hand how we can help young people who are longer-term unemployed. West Fife Enterprise gives people the basic skills that they need to go for job interviews and helps them to recognise that they have to turn up for work on time and fulfil their commitment to their employer, but it also develops people’s manual and technical skills to enable them to go on to employment. However, West Fife Enterprise is not just about helping individuals; it is about building a network of employers who are prepared to engage with the project and provide opportunities for young people to go into. It is all very well providing resources for a young person and taking them through a course, but if, at the end of that, there is nowhere for them to go, we will only make them even less enthusiastic about any employment opportunities that might arise in future.

Those projects, which are embedded in communities and are supported by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, are able to lever in funding from other bodies such as local authorities, as well as European funding. They are then able to support activity within communities that, it is hoped, allows young people over time to get into meaningful longer-term employment.

I am proud of West Fife Enterprise: anyone who has visited it will say exactly how wonderful it is. There will be real opportunities in future with regard to our aircraft carriers, the new Forth crossing and the potential developments in offshore wind in the Fife area. It will be a crying shame if we do not invest in young people to give them the opportunities and skills to benefit from the projects that are coming on stream. If we do not do that, we will just have skills shortages again, and a whole generation of people will miss out on filling those jobs in the future. That would be a real disaster not only for Fife, but for Scotland more generally.

The Coalfields Regeneration Trust undoubtedly provides value for money. Its mission is to return coalfield areas to a sustainable position, so that they can be prosperous, viable and cohesive without on-going Government intervention. The trust has gone some way towards achieving that, by directly channelling £15.3 million into improving economic and social life in Scottish coalfield communities.

The trust has achieved substantial results. It has helped more than 20,000 young people back into work, and it has improved 270 community facilities. Those facilities are the fabric of communities. It is not just about getting young people back into work; it is about improving facilities to help people in communities to take some pride in where they live and work. The trust also supports more than 3,000 community initiatives.

If we are looking for value for money, which is a huge question that we as parliamentarians need to answer, we should note that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust levers in £1.37 for every £1 that it invests. It more than doubles the amount of money that it gets directly from the Scottish Government, and it makes a huge difference with that.

The trust has built the capacity of local community groups, as I have seen at first hand. I have visited groups that want to take projects forward in their local areas but which do not know what to do. They can turn to the trust. They can get funding for feasibility studies and they can engage with other communities outwith the coalfield community. They can then get on track developments that will make a difference, for example by developing community facilities.

Although employment is important, and we should focus on it, we need to ensure that we build institutions in our communities that will support the regeneration of those areas. I believe that members on all sides of the chamber share that view.

One of the best members’ business debates that I have taken part in was on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, as I mentioned earlier. It was brought to the chamber by my colleague Cathy Jamieson in November 2007. There was cross-party support for the motion, and Scottish National Party members such as Willie Coffey, John Wilson and Keith Brown, as well as Stewart Maxwell, who was the Minister for Communities and Sport at the time, spoke at length about the need to direct resources specifically into communities. There was a lot of support at the time not only for the employment initiatives, but for the wider work that could be taken forward.

There are no amendments today from the Conservative or Liberal parties, but I am interested to hear their views. Given the UK context, they may be able to shed some light on what is happening with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust at a UK level, because discussions on that will be running parallel to our discussions in Scotland. If they are not in a position to shed some light on those UK discussions, perhaps the minister can do so, through his officials,.

I know that the Conservatives in particular will feel that they have a responsibility to do something to help coalfield communities, but it is far too easy for us to look back when we need to look forward. I am concerned about the UK Government’s hands-off approach to supporting economic development just now, which really needs to be addressed.

There is no doubt that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has been a success. That view is shared by members on all sides of the chamber. I and my colleagues will highlight today the continuing challenge that coalfield communities face, but we need clarity from the minister and the SNP Government on whether the support for the trust will continue in its current form. If the Government commits to continue supporting the trust in its existing form, it will get support from us on the Labour side of the chamber. If it does not commit to doing so, we will have a serious issue, which we will be very concerned about and will take forward over the next few months.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of continued support from the Scottish Government for regeneration initiatives, particularly in the current economic climate; believes that it is essential for effective regeneration activity to be co-ordinated across the Scottish Government and local government and in communities; welcomes the many regeneration initiatives supporting local communities and sustained by local involvement across Scotland; recognises in particular the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in Scotland as an organisation that has played a central role in supporting vital projects that have improved the quality of life for thousands of people living in former mining communities, has helped over 20,000 young people, supported over 2,000 people back into work and supported over 3,000 community initiatives and highlights the fact that every £1 spent by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust generates £1.37 of matched funding to support these important projects, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is sustained at existing levels during the next spending period.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the debate as the son-in-law and grandson of miners, and as a former director of Cumnock and Doon Enterprise Trust, which was the predecessor to British Coal Enterprise. The trust was set up to regenerate the Cumnock and Doon Valley area, and during my reign there George Foulkes MP—as he was at the time—declared us to be the best-run economic development agency in Britain.

I am particularly committed to the future not only of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, but of the coalfield communities. It is critical that we consider the issue in terms of the communities and not just the trust, despite the fact that the trust is an excellent organisation.

George (Labour, Lothians)

I confirm everything that Alex Neil said. Cumnock and Doon Enterprise Trust was a very well-run enterprise company, and he did the job very well. I am sorry that since then he has not progressed as much as we had all hoped.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I certainly would not regard the House of Lords as progress.

In the first half of my speech I will deal with the general issue of regeneration in Scotland, and in the second half I will address the specifics of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.

As members will know, last week I launched our discussion document on the future of regeneration policy in Scotland, “Building a Sustainable Future”. It is as relevant to the coalfield communities as it is to any other community in Scotland that is facing difficulty, such as Clydebank, the east end of Glasgow, the Cowdenbeaths of this world, and areas such as Kilmarnock and Moray that are facing major closures.

I hope that we can have a grown-up debate about the future of regeneration policies in Scotland for the 21st century. I believe that we need a step change in regeneration across the country, and I hope that, from the document and the discussion that it ignites, we will end up with an ambitious strategy.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I agree with the minister, and I look forward to reading the document and contributing to the discussion around it. Does the minister agree that regeneration is not something that can be done in an area for a year or two years, as it requires a sustained programme of investment? In Clydebank, which I represent, we are halfway through a process of regeneration. We are not at the end of it yet, and I hope that this Government and the next Government will take account of that.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Indeed, and I have very good news for Clydebank this morning if the member will listen for a few more minutes.

I agree that regeneration is not something that can be done in a year or two. John Park mentioned in his speech that a number of pits closed during the 18 years when the Tories were in power. He did not mention, however, that the Labour Government closed 39 pits in Scotland, a third of which were in Fife. The reality is that pits have closed under both Tory and Labour Governments. The one thing that the SNP can say is that we have not closed any pits in Scotland.

In terms of regeneration in general, we are already committed to record levels of funding to improve the physical and economic fabric of our cities, towns and villages, including the coalfield communities. It is not just about the trust, although it plays an important role. To put things in perspective, the trust’s budget from the Scottish Government is about £1.6 million this year. That is divided among 13 local authority areas, so the average is just over £100,000 per area. I do not think that any of us would argue that that is anywhere near enough to tackle the problems of the coalfield communities, which is why we have put into coalfield community areas more than £25 million through the town centre regeneration fund and another £1.3 million through our wider role fund. That is nearly £27 million that the Labour Party did not deliver.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

First, the minister has just agreed with Des McNulty that funding is needed over a longer period. He said that funding is available just now. Will funding be available for the next two or three years?

Secondly, I pointed out in my speech that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust levers in funding, so it is not just on its own. Everyone in the chamber has supported the work of the trust. The minister cannot suddenly say that it is not worth the money that he is putting into it.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am not saying that. I am saying that Labour lacks enough ambition for the coalfield communities. It is talking about £1.6 million, but including the coalfield money this year we are talking about £29 million for the coalfield communities. We are committed not only to the coalfield communities but, as I said, to regeneration to deal, apart from anything else, with the dire consequences of the banking and economic crisis that we inherited from the previous Government.

If members will listen, they will hear some news on the urban regeneration companies, including Clydebank Re-built. It will be very good news for Mr McNulty. He wrote in the Clydebank Post that a key litmus test of the SNP’s commitment to Clydebank would be our commitment to the Scottish Enterprise element of the money for regeneration there. After I tell him the news, I look forward to his column next week saying that the SNP has passed the test because it has delivered for Clydebank as well as the other URC areas in Scotland.

I am delighted to announce that the final funding allocations for the urban regeneration companies in 2011-12 are as follows: £21.5 million for Clyde Gateway URC; £4 million for Riverside Inverclyde; £4 million for Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company; and £1.6 million for Clydebank Re-built.

On top of that, we will use the £50 million joint European support for sustainable investment in city areas holding fund that has been established in partnership with the European Investment Bank to invest in revenue-generating regeneration projects in key regeneration areas, including the URC areas and the coalfield community areas. The 13 local authority areas that qualify for that £50 million JESSICA fund coincide with the coalfield community areas.

On top of that, we will invest £10 million in vacant and derelict land in some of our most deprived communities, thereby refocusing the fund’s objectives on stimulating economic growth and job creation in a small number of priority sites, as well as continuing to support the regeneration of our communities through registered social landlords by making available £6 million of funding.

On top of that, we will encourage local authorities, working with the Scottish Futures Trust, to bring forward tax increment finance proposals to kick-start economic development.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, not at the moment.

However, we are not only investing our and the taxpayer’s money in those communities for physical and business regeneration. A key issue is ensuring that people are job ready. Employability is a key contributor to raising the employment levels in those areas. While physical regeneration is essential, it is not good enough by itself.

Employment rates in Scotland have risen again in recent months. It is good to be able to report that 71.1 per cent of Scots are in employment, which means that we have a higher rate of employment than any of the other home nations in the UK.

I am delighted that my colleague John Swinney was able to announce a raft of measures in his budget last week to ensure that young people are not left behind as a result of the recession. His announcements included support for 46,500 training opportunities, which included 25,000 modern apprenticeships next year against the Labour demand for 21,000—we exceeded it by 25 per cent.

Last week, John Swinney also announced community jobs Scotland, a new programme that will offer at least six months’ work in the third sector for up to 2,000 young unemployed people who are struggling to get into the labour market.

I point out that at no point during the budget negotiations did the Labour Party ask for one penny for the coalfield communities. Indeed, Labour’s record in those communities and in its dealings with the miners down the years is appalling. In particular, when in government, the Labour Party cheated nearly 2,000 miners out of compensation to which they were entitled as a result of lung and related diseases. Labour members should hang their heads in shame at what they have done to mining communities in Scotland.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No, the minister is winding up.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As my father and grandfather used to say, we could always rely on the Labour Party being loyal to the miners when it was election time. In between elections, it sold them down the river. That is something that the Scottish Government will not do.

I move amendment S3M-7992.1, to leave out from second “sustained” to end and insert:

“focused on job-creation activities that can contribute to the economic revival of these communities.”

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Conservatives welcome this debate on regeneration. I congratulate Johann Lamont on lodging the motion so that we can have the debate. However, I am disappointed that Labour chose to take such a narrow view by concentrating on coalfield regeneration and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust when regeneration and the many alternative approaches to it remain subjects of debate in communities, local authorities, academic circles and, periodically, the Parliament.

Regeneration will be increasingly important as budgets become tighter, demographics change and housing stock becomes older and needs more investment. It is perhaps ironic that Labour has chosen to debate the subject when the party has left areas such as Glasgow—where its heartlands are traditionally to be found—with projects that have not resulted in the kind of community-led regeneration that the Scottish Conservatives would like and which has been so successful elsewhere outside the coalfields.

In Arbroath, for example, Angus Council has achieved a great deal by ensuring that communities lead regeneration. However, regeneration in some parts of Scotland has led to gentrification that has priced whole communities out of areas in which they have lived, sometimes for generations, and has replaced traditional businesses with upmarket cafes and wine bars. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the kind of regeneration that ordinary communities want to experience.

Labour stands here big on rhetoric and light on action. When the Scottish Conservatives entered into negotiations for the budget settlement this year, we secured £16 million of investment to, among other things, kick-start stalled projects and £10 million of help for business start-ups, job creation and exporting, which may be of use to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Our budget negotiations delivered for jobs, housing and communities.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Perhaps Alex Johnstone can explain the approach that the Conservative-led UK Government is taking to Coalfields Regeneration Trust funding. That would be helpful.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It would be helpful, but all I can say is that, on inquiry, we were told that an announcement would be made soon.

The Conservatives made efforts during the budget negotiations to ensure that money was made available for projects. Having secured that money for Scotland’s communities, we and other parties had to watch the Labour Party indulge in the worst kind of obstructive, negative politics by contributing nothing but negativity to the budget process.

To those who look to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to help to improve their communities, it will, no doubt, be a bitter irony that the Labour Party seeks to indulge in more than two hours of political grandstanding on potential funding cuts having, only two weeks ago, sat on its hands and wasted a golden opportunity to secure via the budget process the funds that it seeks.

In light of that, many will view today’s debate as little more than a political stunt. Who knows? They may well be right. The Scottish Labour Party has form on that. In 2008, Labour members abstained on the final budget motion even though they had amended it and, in 2009, they chose to vote against the budget, only to U-turn on a loose promise of more apprenticeships, demonstrating yet again that Labour is for turning.

Having said that, I commend the Coalfields Regeneration Trust for its hard work, dedication and many successes. It has much to be proud of and its record is enviable.

Labour looks for further funding, but it strikes me that its record on providing an economic environment that would allow coalfield communities to flourish is significantly less than adequate. For example, no fewer than 1.7 million manufacturing jobs were lost throughout the United Kingdom between 1997 and 2009. This country’s manufacturing industry declined by a staggering 9.3 per cent in the same period, which is the largest decline on record under any Government.

Not content with that, Labour underlined its hapless economic record by taking the country to the brink of bankruptcy. It has left the Conservative-led coalition Government with the biggest peacetime deficit in history. In closing the debate, perhaps Johann Lamont will take a moment to reflect on the fact that, while she seeks to secure funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, the UK Government is spending a staggering £120 million on interest every day to try to pay off Labour’s historic legacy of debt.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Get on your bike.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The funding that Johann Lamont seeks for the trust could have been obtained many times over, if it were not for that Westminster legacy.

Labour’s economic incompetence does not end there. To add insult to injury, council tax rose under previous Labour Administrations by 62 per cent. Not content with that, Labour is now in favour of raising it again. No taxation stone is left unturned under Labour. Some Labour members wish to use the income tax-raising powers. It will no doubt be a relief to the Scottish taxpayer that the SNP Government took its eye off the ball and let those powers lapse.

The Scottish Conservatives have consistently supported the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s important work. At 5 o’clock, we will do our bit to unite the Parliament around the motion, as amended by Alex Neil.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. As John Park said, when the Parliament has debated regeneration in Government time or in members’ business debates, cross-party consensus has been achieved. That consensus has been strained so far this morning, but we know that an election is looming—that was proved when a member of the public elbowed a Labour candidate in the face. I wish John Park luck as he co-ordinates the remainder of the Labour Party’s election campaign. [Interruption.] I can share stories about my injuries on the doorstep, but that is a different debate.

If we were in any doubt about the looming election campaign, we heard in the minister’s speech a list of figures, some of which were wrapped up with others, some of which had been previously announced and some of which were already in budgets that agencies had set and which had been packaged slightly differently. That is not to undermine the impact that we would like funding to have in the communities that the Government has specified, but the health warning is relevant.

I state categorically the Liberal Democrats’ support for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s work, the Industrial Communities Alliance’s wider work and the work of their partners with local authorities throughout Scotland and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. All that work has enthusiastic backing.

I will highlight one element of the UK context and describe some challenges and how we can address them—collectively, we hope. I will also refer to local areas in the constituency that I am proud to represent in the Parliament.

John Park made points about the UK Government. We will hear its view on its relationship with the trust in due course, as has been said. When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, he had a policy of establishing regional select committees in England to focus on communities that he felt had not been represented strongly by the Government or the Westminster Parliament, but that policy never came to fruition.

It is worth putting it on the record that, within a month of the coalition Government taking power in the UK, tax incentive measures were put in place for areas outside south-east England and training support was made available for those areas. Development support and infrastructure investment in many industrial communities outside south-east England have now been put in place. We will have to judge the success of those measures, of course, but it is worth recognising that they represent the best way of starting to address the fact that equality declined and the wealth gap increased in the 13 years of the Labour Administration.

We heard from Duncan McNeil a comment from a sedentary position about unemployment. No one at all glories in any unemployment. In the past week, I have met individuals who face difficulties with their employment in the next week and who face redundancy. However, it is a fact that, although unemployment levels are far too high, they are still below the forecasts that Alistair Darling set when he left the Treasury. I am not at all complacent about the situation, but it is worth putting that information on the record.

I move on to work with the industrial communities that we all represent. Many such areas are still struggling with seismic changes not only in the economy but in socioeconomic elements. John Park rehearsed all those issues, about which I agree. However, we have a different approach to the solutions. The framework for supporting such communities is insufficient and a series of ad hoc announcements for individual programmes that can change from one year to another is also insufficient.

A core purpose of the Scottish Development Agency was to help communities and their economies to adjust to changes in the economy. However, its successor, Scottish Enterprise, and Skills Development Scotland—with its relationship with local authorities—will not do the work that is needed to achieve our long-term ambitions for many such communities.

Last March—almost a year ago—Rhona Brankin spoke in Cathy Jamieson’s debate on industrial communities. Rhona Brankin rehearsed the difficulties that still exist in Midlothian, which borders part of the constituency that I represent. Her area is predominantly a mining constituency, whereas my area is predominantly a mill constituency—paper in Penicuik and textiles in the Borders. All such mills used the mines in Rhona Brankin’s constituency for their fuel source.

The disparity and lack of coherence in the support from Scottish Enterprise, local authorities and our skills agency do not create the support that we need to go forward. That is why we have looked back and why we want a radical change.

We would prefer our communities and economies to be supported through regional development banks, which would bring together existing support levels and provide a single focus for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust or the Industrial Communities Alliance to lobby and increasingly to work with in partnership. That arrangement could support the adjustment in skills, training, economic support and inward investment in our existing economies and it could be used in considering the future of life sciences, biosciences, earth sciences and pharmaceutical industries—the new industries that are coming into the areas that relied heavily on the former industries.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

If I have time, I will do so.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The intervention will have to be brief.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I give way briefly to Helen Eadie.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does Jeremy Tolson understand that the CRT’s work bears no resemblance to the investment that he talks about?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr Purvis.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Thank you for getting my name correct, Presiding Officer.

I am not saying that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust will be replaced by any of those bodies. It should come as no surprise that I pay due credit to the work that Helen Eadie does, but the number of organisations that are listed in the mapping exercise that her office has undertaken highlights the confusion and lack of consistency in this area. There is no real focus, and that is letting down the communities that I am talking about.

If the work of the alliance or the trust is to be better supported, it would be better if they could focus on working with a single development bank that can lever in the investment about which the minister spoke. That approach would send out a signal that we are addressing the deep-seated problems that John Park set out. If we simply tinker at the edges, we will let these communities down. The Liberal Democrats’ long-term view is to support these communities. We cannot afford to continue to let them down.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come to the open debate. Speeches of around six minutes, please. I call Duncan McNeil. [Interruption.]

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

My apologies, Presiding Officer. I thought that Frank McAveety wanted to get past me.

The debate has got off to a depressing start. At least Alex Johnstone did not claim to be a friend of the miners—how could he? The debate has not changed in relation to how fast and deep the budget cuts are and how high unemployment will travel.

I come from Inverclyde and represent that area, where we know all about de-industrialisation. Mass unemployment ensues, taking work out of a working community. That destroys that community, leading to deprivation, poverty, health problems, increased crime and drugs. Then comes depopulation, which puts pressure on services and schools. How do we fill our schools? How do we run our hospitals and maintain our maternity services? All of that becomes a massive challenge.

Of course, de-industrialisation changed the political environment, too, in many areas and certainly in mine. In the Scottish Parliament, we—in coalition with other parties—at least recognised some of those challenges and were able to save our maternity hospitals.

The initial challenge was to try to replace sunset industries with sunrise industries and big jobs with big jobs. However, full-time employment was replaced by part-time employment and good pay with low pay. Casualisation also ensued. All of that was made possible by a Conservative Government. Another Conservative Government is at it again.

The discussion document is important in some ways to the next stage—I will come back to that. It is important that we learn the lessons about how to support our communities and find out what works and what does not work.

We have a model that we believe works. The Scottish Parliament supported us in setting up the urban regeneration company. We recognised the need to bring together the private and public sectors and to drive forward our ambition for our community. The community became involved in that response. We also recognised that it was not simply about replacing jobs. We realised that there was a massive job to do in reclaiming land and clearing brownfield sites. The land needed to be decontaminated—it had been poisoned by the industrial chemicals that had been used over years and years. We needed to build houses in the public sector and the private sector and agreed a housing stock transfer. We also agreed to build a new school to tackle attainment. All of that was opposed by Alex Neil and his party—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Rubbish.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No it is not. I am prepared to take an intervention from the minister.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On housing, we delivered second stage transfer in Glasgow. Labour did not deliver one second stage transfer; we delivered 20,000 homes.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

That makes my case completely. The minister opposed housing stock transfer and if we had listened to him, Stuart McMillan and others, people would now be living in even poorer housing. If we had listened to Alex Neil on schools, we would not have the new schools that we have right now. That is the reality. The minister has proved my case.

We also recognised that our college was at the heart of our community. Our college could address the skills deficit that we had. We know that regeneration is a people business. We needed to get people involved and move them on.

My only regret is that the “Building a Sustainable Future” discussion document came too late. It is a smokescreen in relation to what is happing now. It was produced after the budget—a budget that has cut by in excess of 60 per cent the funding for our urban regeneration company, which had such ambitious plans to modernise my area. My college is in crisis. It faces massive budget cuts and 90 of its people face redundancy. All of that puts pressure on the young people in my area. Every pound that we cut shoves up youth unemployment.

Another cut from this Government is the unfair budget settlement for our local council, but the Government refuses to recognise that, despite assurances from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, that he would take into account the needs of communities that are less resilient to cuts. If there is a community anywhere in Scotland that is less resilient than mine in that regard, I do not know where it is. Our council needs a fair settlement and our college needs to be funded appropriately. What has the Scottish Government done other than cut the budgets of a community that is less resilient? That is even before the cuts in public sector employment come. We are overdependent on the public sector in Scotland. That is not because everybody wants to work in the public sector but because we have lost massive amounts of our manufacturing industry.

When we got the Scottish Parliament, we expected that it would work for communities such as mine. It did for a period, but it is no longer working for those communities. When Labour tackles the Tories on the cuts that they are making in Scotland, we expect the minister’s support. We do not expect him to stab us in the back by cutting college and local government budgets and increasing unemployment.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I apologise for having to leave the debate about half an hour before its end.

I wish John Park every success in the recovery of his lip. Indeed, I wish him every success in the coming election. I hope that Labour sets new records—for second places. The contest to come will be interesting.

Regeneration is a subject that is timely and important to communities not only in central Scotland but right across Scotland. In my remarks, I will make some comments about areas outwith central Scotland.

John Park highlighted an important issue when he said that it is not correct to focus only on people. When we look at regeneration, I agree that we also have to consider the physical, social and economic environments. In fact, a complex set of interlocking issues make up the single issue that is regeneration. The need for regeneration has run through the generations in far too many of our communities.

That is precisely why the Conservatives absolutely miss the point when they focus on the idea of workers relocating to find new work. Indeed, Norman Tebbit has been on the campaign trail in Wales this week. He gave an interview in which he suggested, once again, that the “get on your bike” phrase that he used years ago still has a resonance. That focus is simplistic, inadequate and inappropriate.

It is good to hear members on Labour’s front bench—if not members on Labour’s back benches—reinforcing the importance of the Forth replacement crossing, which is not only a transport investment but one that creates significant jobs. I hope that Lord Foulkes remains a sole voice.

Regeneration is a key part of our economy. It is needed just as much in rural villages and towns as it is in urban city centres. Just as we have seen significant change in the industrial structure of Scotland in many communities in the central belt, so we have seen the structure of our traditional industries of fishing and farming change significantly. Those industries have reduced the number of people who are employed within them and that has caused suffering for a number of associated engineering industries, too.

The Coalfields Regeneration Trust does excellent work for the communities that it supports. I do not think that during today’s debate we will hear criticism of its efforts, although we may focus on differences.

However, there is a Scotland beyond the central belt. Just yesterday, on 23 February, Portsoy in my constituency was granted £500,000 from Historic Scotland’s conservation area regeneration scheme to repair historic buildings in the harbour and to give people training in traditional skills. That is the kind of initiative that the Government is taking. It will make the area more attractive to visitors, but it will also boost the local economy. Building on traditional skills and renovation work will create for young people, in particular, key opportunities to engage in new activities.

Elsewhere in my constituency, there have been successful regeneration schemes in Peterhead, and £3 million has been spent on a townscape heritage project in Banff. In August, Aberdeenshire Council allocated slightly more than a third of £1 million from Scottish Enterprise to regeneration projects in Banff and Buchan.

Regeneration is important throughout Scotland. That is why I welcome the document that the Government has just published on the subject, which recognises that many of the traditional models are less viable. For too many companies, reliance on debt finance simply is not possible. Together with difficulties in accessing land and property in the current climate, that is making it more difficult overall to attract investment. We need community-led regeneration, rather than a top-down approach. We need to empower our communities so that, through the Scottish Government’s concordat with local authorities in particular, we can find ways of doing the things that are required in our local communities. Regeneration works when each community has a stake in it.

I think in particular of Maud, a small village in my constituency, where over a long period—regeneration is not a quick fix—the community has engaged in redeveloping an area that 50 years ago was the biggest, most active cattle market in the whole of Scotland. Today, the area is thriving, with many different activities in a new centre that has been developed in close co-operation with the community, through a planning for real project that engaged the very young and the very old.

Like others, I welcomed the 2007 debate on coalfield regeneration. After waiting for four years for another debate, we find that two have come along on the same day—not, I must say, miraculous scheduling on the part of the Labour business manager.

In comparison with the minister, I must go back one more generation to reach my mining ancestors. My great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather were miners in Bannockburn. They were among more than 300 Stevensons who were miners in that community 150 years ago. Business changes, and we must respond. Regeneration will be important. I will support the Government tonight.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Understandably, much of today’s debate has been about the past, because many of the communities that we represent have been shaped and defined by their history. Duncan McNeil made a passionate speech about how the private sector used to be a substantial contributor to the generation of wealth, opportunity and employment in Inverclyde. Because of a variety of issues that were exacerbated by the attitude of Tory Governments from 1979 onwards, which did not have any serious policies to address the situation in such areas, that ceased to be the case.

The same thing happened in the east end of Glasgow. The Glasgow eastern area renewal project was the critical project there in the mid-1970s. That is an interesting period, because in the mid-1970s the minister was a researcher for another political party, for which he produced documents that identified the ills of conservatism and modern capitalism. I welcomed those documents. At the time, I was a very young man—probably in my early teens, if the minister cares to believe me. The disappointment today is that he has fallen into the trap of saying that everything that happened before was not effective. I know that, as a teenager, the minister read his books on Marxism. The reality of international capitalism is that an interventionist strategy by the Labour Government and other Governments across the world was required to address the international economic crisis of the past three years. The minister’s comments were disappointing.

I mentioned the fact that the minister spent time as a researcher because that shaped his speech in today’s debate. Cleverly, like most researchers, he gave us a barrage of statistics, possibly to camouflage some of the decisions that have been made. The history of social housing in recent years is not about whether only six council houses were built under Labour but about the amount of social housing that was built under the previous Administration, regardless of whether that happened to have the imprimatur of a local authority or of a housing association. That point matters—during my childhood in Glasgow, I experienced some of the negative aspects of council housing and it is not the golden experience that it is claimed to be. The real issue is the budget that is available.

I will focus on what the challenge to the Parliament should be, and I will comment on one or two points that members have made. First, youth unemployment is the pressing matter of today, because the youth unemployment rate tends to be two or three times higher than the average rate. That is a critically different statistic. Secondly, in the last six months of the Labour Government that some have maligned, youth unemployment fell and youth employment increased. Today, after nine months of the coalition Government, youth unemployment has increased and youth employment has fallen. That is the statistical reality. We must decide what we want to do for the communities concerned.

Each party has made a contribution. It is not about whether we are absolutely right all the time or whether the Government is absolutely wrong all the time—it is about what we want to do. The disappointing thing since January is that it has required a reaction from me and many others for the money that the minister has announced for the different authorities to be reinstated. Understandably, he is shaking his head. I know that he has sent me a letter about these issues. He can probably talk to me about them, because he wants to meet me to discuss them. I will be delighted to do that. However, if there had not been a stushie about budget cuts by Scottish Enterprise, which is an arm’s-length organisation, I do not think that the minister would have made the announcements that he has made today. That is the reality. However, I welcome the fact that some of the contributions have been reinstated.

Alex Johnstone deployed an interesting argument. He claimed that regeneration strategies had not really worked in some places in Glasgow. I would welcome a visit from him to Clyde Gateway, because the company has been using public money to generate opportunities for private investment and employment. It wants to continue to do that and must get the resources for that purpose. The minister has made some announcements on the issue, to which the board of Clyde Gateway will respond in due course.

Because of the company’s work, Aviva has invested £10 million in a new office development that is located in the east end. The connectivity that the M74 will offer will make a real difference. The commitments that have been made to a business park will generate small business growth, which Alex Johnstone should welcome. If I read project Merlin correctly, it says that we should encourage small and medium-sized enterprises in order to grow the economy. That is a UK Government project. I do not know whether the minister has a similar sorcerer’s role; given his speech, any such project should probably be termed project Voldemort. One is not meant to mention the dark lord’s name, but I will name him today—it is the Minister for Housing and Communities.

Alf Young, a serious commentator on economics, gave up his time for Riverside Inverclyde because he believed that it would make a difference. He has said:

“I just feel absolutely betrayed. I came into this thinking there was a cross-party, cross-parliament commitment.”

I hope that, in the discussion with Riverside Inverclyde, the minister will try to re-establish trust. Robert Crawford, who was also a researcher—for the minister’s new party—a long time ago, has said:

“it is the wrong time in the economic cycle to be doing this.”

People who were researchers for different parties—the minister, Alf Young and Robert Crawford—are all saying similar things, I think. We need to pull that together.

The east end of Glasgow needs to have trust reinforced year after year, because people in the east end feel that the economic strategies of successive Administrations—of different hues—over the years, going back to the 1920s, did not address the cumulative need of the area. We need to rebuild trust; I hope that we can do that in a meeting.

Clyde Gateway would love to have the minister back in the east end of Glasgow, so that we can demonstrate what we are trying to do with the resources that are available. We need to rebuild the trust that existed, because over the past two or three months it has been fractured, which is disappointing. I hope that the minister will be able to address the issue.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am happy to take part in the debate and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the SNP’s excellent record on regeneration activities.

The Labour motion talks about recognising

“the importance of continued support from the Scottish Government for regeneration initiatives”.

That is a welcome recognition by Labour that the Scottish Government is investing to help regenerate our communities. In the spirit of consensus, I can say that the creation of the urban regeneration companies, which were set up before 2007, has provided a focused approach to helping to turn around areas that were neglected.

On 24 January, the Greenock Telegraph reported that Alf Young, the chair of Riverside Inverclyde, said:

“I have always been told by the politicians and their officials this was a 10-year mission to take 20-odd years of dereliction and do something about it, and that they would back us.”

I used that quotation in the budget debate, and I have no qualms about using it again.

When I was growing up in Inverclyde, I was appalled to see the dereliction that engulfed much of the area. An attempt was made to make Inverclyde a better place, with enterprise zone status, but unfortunately that approach did not fulfil its potential. I hope that the URC, Riverside Inverclyde, creates an opportunity for Inverclyde to move forward and for the URC to help to empower the whole community.

During stage 3 of the budget debate, John Swinney agreed to reinstate some of the money that was due to be removed from the URC budget. The £6 million, in addition to the planned £25 million, will certainly help the URCs; I know that it will help Riverside Inverclyde.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the member agree that a cut in the URC budget in excess of 60 per cent is outrageous and will damage our ambition for Inverclyde?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I wrote to Alex Neil about that a while ago and received a response.

Riverside Inverclyde is ahead of the game. It has developed things sooner than was planned in its initial business plan. That is a positive. The announcement this morning that Riverside Inverclyde will receive a further £1.1 million in addition to the £2.9 million that it was due to receive is a positive step. I welcome additional money coming to Inverclyde. I voted for more money to come to Inverclyde in the budget. Labour did not. Mr McNeil did not. I am disappointed with that.

Riverside Inverclyde has made great strides in trying to improve the area and, as I have said, is ahead of schedule, which is encouraging. However, it cannot and, I am sure, will not rest on its laurels.

I have visited a representative of the Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company. I do not intend to say much about the company as I am sure that my colleague Kenneth Gibson will do so later. I saw the positive effects of the URC on the Clyde Marina in Ardrossan and was greatly impressed by the proposals. Representatives of the Clyde Marina are members of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism, which I convene. I understand the URC’s potential and the necessity for it to succeed.

Regeneration takes many forms, from the money allocated through the town centre regeneration fund to moneys for local authorities, URCs—where they exist—new schools and new and improved housing. I will come back to that last example in a moment.

As Alf Young said, there has been dereliction over 20 years. This is not just about providing shiny new buildings, although those are essential. There is another important element. Giving evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee during its enterprise inquiry, Dr Ian Wall, who is from Scotland’s independent regeneration network, said:

“Regeneration is about people, not things.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 26 January 2011; c 4694.]

That can get lost in translation when regeneration is discussed. Shiny new buildings are all well and good but if no or little sustainability is built in we are just creating a rod for our own back and we will not address the complexity of regeneration in its entirety.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member agree that the strength of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is that it is about people? It is about people who are committed to the coalfield communities, who understand their history and who have a vision for the future. It is therefore mean-spirited at the very least to cut a relatively small budget that would allow those people’s energy and commitment to an area to continue to support the communities that they come from.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

People, whether in the Coalfields Regeneration Trust or the URCs in Inverclyde and Irvine Bay, are the most important element here.

I return to a couple of points that I mentioned earlier. On housing, the SNP campaigned against housing stock transfer in Inverclyde. I have no qualms about that campaign. I am delighted that the SNP has provided record funding for new housing in Inverclyde through River Clyde Homes and registered social landlords. The SNP Government has a tremendous record on housing for Inverclyde.

There are issues at James Watt College, but those are wider than just the reduced money from the Scottish Government. The fundamental problem is the £1.3 billion cut to the Scottish Government this year, which is the result of not only the Tories and Lib Dems cutting the budget but the economic mismanagement of the Labour Party when it was in power in the previous Administration.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Perhaps Stuart McMillan would have been happier if the Labour Government at Westminster had allowed the Scottish banks to go to the wall and the country to suffer the consequences.

Much of the debate has been about the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. I have not had much contact with the trust—the last pit in Maryhill closed in about 1963, so I do not remember it—but I am familiar with its work and the fact that the loss of jobs and economic drivers in the coalfield communities echoes what happened in communities such as mine when heavy industry, on which Glasgow depended, disappeared, creating problems such as the ones Duncan McNeil identified.

Last year, the minister visited Maryhill burgh halls in my constituency. The building once housed local government and civic justice and was the social hub of the district. A project will bring the main civic building of the area back to life. It is a true regeneration project that is funded by a large range of organisations, including the town centre regeneration fund.

When the halls reopen later this year, 20 stained glass panels that were removed when it lay unused will be returned to their rightful place. The panels are important artistically, but they are also a graphic link to our industrial past as they feature 20 trades that were carried out by the men and women of Maryhill in the 1870s. If we undertake some basic research about the panels, we find that they have something else in common: all the trades operated within yards of the Forth and Clyde canal. The canal was a vital part of the infrastructure that supported Glasgow at that time and Maryhill was at the heart of it. It is entirely appropriate therefore that the Forth and Clyde canal will be at the centre of the transformational area that is planned for Maryhill. The plan includes some 400 new homes, shops and restaurants. We have heard rumours that there might even be a hotel, which some local wags have suggested might be called the Maryhilton.

The housing will be a mix of private and social rented properties and it will be located adjacent to the canal locks. It is hoped that new green space areas will be established and that a Glasgow paddle sports centre can be established further along the canal at Speirs Wharf, making the entire area and canal corridor a focus for water sports. Some social housing has already been built and occupied in an area known as the Botany. I sincerely hope that Maryhill does not have to wait as long as the residents of the Botany had to wait for their new houses.

The Ruchill area of my constituency owes its existence to the new industries that sprang up along the canal, but as those industries disappeared so too did the jobs for local people. The last big employer was Ruchill hospital, but it, too, closed in 1998. However, that challenge was seen as an opportunity—an opportunity to build new, quality housing on the extensive hospital grounds. Unfortunately, Scottish Enterprise, which owns the land, has not shown the leadership that is needed to take forward that ambitious scheme. The boom years of property development have come and gone, and still the site lies empty.

As others have said, regeneration is not just about building new houses and facilities; it is also about making good places that have an identity—something distinctive that marks them out from other areas. In the case of Ruchill, it was some of the hospital buildings, standing tall in the skyline, that provided that distinctiveness. Scottish Enterprise argued that, for the site to be marketable, it was necessary to demolish parts of the former hospital. It was allowed to do so on the basis that it would protect the remaining buildings until a buyer was found, but it has now decided that almost all the remaining buildings should go too, partly because of its neglect of those buildings, which will now be expensive to secure. I strongly object to that proposal, particularly as it affects buildings that Historic Scotland has listed at category A or B. I have said so, and I will continue to say so.

Maryhill burgh halls was fortunate enough to secure funding from the town centre regeneration fund, but Possilpark was not. Despite the fact that Glasgow City Council, the local regeneration agency and the local housing association presented an excellent, innovative proposal for the regeneration of Saracen Street to complement the new housing and new school that have already been built and the Saracen Exchange project, which will create a new business premises in the area, the proposal was turned down, but I am delighted that those agencies have enough faith in their proposal to want to continue to take it forward on their own. Unlike the Scottish Government, those local agencies understand the imperative behind the initiative. They know that Possilpark is a vibrant community with great people and that those people should be supported, so I look forward to seeing their hard work come to fruition.

Across my constituency there are a number of vacant brownfield sites that are ripe for development, but many have lain empty for far too long. That is recognised in the city plan, and the possibility exists that at least one of those sites will be used for a large-scale retail development and for housing at a later date, but we need more. We need a signal to be sent out by the Parliament and the Government that we cannot wait around for the economy to improve. We must seize the initiative and begin regeneration projects that will kick-start the economic recovery so that our communities can reap the benefits when that recovery comes.

The Government inherited a good legacy of work by the previous Scottish Executive and by Glasgow City Council and our housing associations to build new homes, new schools and new jobs. I hope that the funding that Alex Neil referred to has the desired effect, but just because the minister announces money twice does not mean to say that he can spend it twice, and I am afraid that the launching of a consultation document in the SNP Government’s dying days is not much of a legacy for the next Government.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Regeneration is integral to the betterment of our society, and the Scottish Government has shown a strong commitment to the regeneration of our urban areas since it took office in 2007. That has included the provision of substantial levels of funding for urban regeneration companies and the creation of the Scottish Futures Trust, as well as a number of other innovative policies and initiatives.

Despite its good intentions, Labour’s raising of this important issue nonetheless smacks of hypocrisy, given that only two weeks ago Labour voted against £31 million of support for urban regeneration companies—£6 million more than had been planned in the draft budget. It is quite baffling that Labour has lodged a motion that

“recognises the importance of continued support from the Scottish Government for regeneration initiatives”

when regeneration is all the more necessary following the shocking economic mismanagement and ineptitude of the previous Labour Government at Westminster. Alex Johnstone said that there was a 9.8 per cent reduction in output over the Labour Government’s 13 years in office, but he did not say that despite pledging in 1997 to protect manufacturing it oversaw a 37 per cent decline in manufacturing employment in the UK, which has hit my area of north Ayrshire, where manufacturing is of disproportionate importance, particularly hard. It is why the former Cabinet minister Alan Milburn said that, under Labour, the gap between rich and poor was the widest it had been for 80 years.

The fact that urban regeneration is of particular interest to me is due in no small part to the fact that one of the six URCs, Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company, covers my constituency. I was delighted by Mr Neil’s most welcome announcement. URCs are special purpose organisations that were established to attract and co-ordinate public and private sector investment around a shared set of objectives that have been decided on by investors and—most important—the communities themselves. Irvine Bay URC spans 14 miles of coastline and is one of the largest URCs. Its aim is to develop the built environment in Ardrossan and Saltcoats in my constituency and in Stevenston, Kilwinning and Irvine in Cunninghame South. That is an essential task, given that some of those towns contain large pockets of deprivation and have high levels of unemployment and ill health. Irvine Bay URC is working to engineer new investment and sustainable employment, to boost tourism and to improve the social conditions in the area.

I have witnessed at first hand—on at least two occasions with the minister—the important work that the company has undertaken during its relatively short existence, and I am excited to see its projects coming to fruition. They range from small projects such as the renovation of several listed buildings that have been turned into art galleries and restaurants to bigger projects such as an 8,000ft2 business centre in Stevenston, the Ardrossan marina, which will create some 400 jobs and attract £70 million of investment, and several large-scale town centre regeneration projects. Those new retail and leisure facilities will also create jobs and give people a reason to come to that part of Ayrshire to spend money and to enjoy what is on offer. In addition, the creation of 300 construction jobs, which will include 31 trainee positions, and the building of a hotel will provide a significant boost. There are many good things to say about what is happening at Irvine Bay. Of course, such developments not only benefit communities but provide support for ancillary industries such as construction, as I have mentioned.

Further to the Scottish Government’s commitment to URCs, the national housing trust initiative will also support regeneration. The aim of that scheme is to deliver, through an innovative high-value-for-money solution, thousands of houses that are suitable for mid-market rent in areas where there is a high demand for such housing. Homes that are brought into the scheme will be funded jointly by participating councils and developers, and the Scottish Government is offering councils a guarantee to ensure that they can repay any money that they borrow to fund the scheme. It will keep people in jobs, particularly in the construction industry, by allowing house builders to kick-start construction on stalled housing sites that in many cases would otherwise remain mothballed. This innovative scheme is being taken forward by the Scottish Futures Trust, which the SNP Government set up and which Labour intends to scrap in the unlikely event of its forming the next Administration.

The SNP has many other initiatives and policies. For example, in the recent strategy document “Homes Fit for the 21st Century”, we set out plans to allow councils to increase the rate of council tax that they charge on long-term empty properties. There are 25,000 such properties in Scotland and it makes no sense for a council tax rate of 50 per cent to be levied on them. Our policy would not only discourage leaving homes empty but raise £130 million for councils, which is enough money to deliver 800 new homes a year and to support 1,500 construction jobs.

Local communities are often best placed to decide how their area should be regenerated, so the SNP has bold plans to assist and empower local communities through our proposed community empowerment and renewal bill, which will enable community purchase of underused and unused public sector assets and enable communities to regenerate dormant land and vacant or derelict buildings in their area. Granting local people such powers and assistance can often provide the spark for wider-ranging regeneration and investment.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Does the member agree that improving transport infrastructure is crucial to regeneration in an area? Will he join me in calling for a budget and a timescale to be set for the upgrading of the Kilwinning to Glasgow bypass?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On Tuesday—unlike the member—I was at a meeting with North Ayrshire Council, Scottish Enterprise, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and the Minister for Housing and Communities at which that very case was made. I have pressed for that since my election.

What we have heard from some Labour members—particularly Duncan McNeil who, sadly, is no longer present in the chamber—is a somewhat incoherent and blinkered view. We have had the bare-faced denial of Labour’s responsibility for the recession and the cuts that are having to be forced on Scotland by the UK Government according to the Tories’ philosophy. Laughably, we have even had criticism of how money is distributed to local authorities, despite the fact that the SNP uses the same distribution formula that the Labour Party used when it was in power.

Unfortunately, time prevents me from talking about the coalfields community but, along with Mr Neil and Mr Stevenson, I have family who worked in the coal mines; my paternal grandfather was a miner from Leven.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

This morning, we have heard a broad range of activities being classed as regeneration activities. Perhaps one of the issues that we face is the fact that regeneration means different things to different people. Obviously it means the regeneration of the physical infrastructure, which is what the town centre regeneration fund was aimed at helping. I welcome Patricia Ferguson’s support for that in her constituency although, if my memory serves me correctly, the Labour Party voted against that initiative. There we go.

Incidentally, I was struck by something else Patricia Ferguson said—I agree with it 100 per cent: just because the minister announces money twice does not mean that he can spend it twice. That makes me wonder why she was not a more effective adviser to the previous Prime Minister and chancellor than the current Labour leader.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I gently point out to the member that money to regenerate our town centres was in our last manifesto.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It might well have been in Labour’s manifesto, but it did not vote for the initiative when it had the opportunity to do so in Parliament. Labour will presumably be judged by what it does, not what it promises. We all know that a promise from the Labour Party is not worth a great deal.

Regeneration is more about jobs than about anything else. Some regeneration initiatives aim to tackle health issues arising out of or linked to deprivation, and climate change initiatives are also increasingly being tagged on to regeneration, but at the absolute core it is jobs that sustain communities and lead regeneration.

Some points have been made today about how we create jobs and help people with the skills and abilities to access employment. There is a variety of threads there. If people are leaving school without the skills that they need to fit into the employment market, we have a serious problem in some of our schools. I can understand that the Government must be able to ensure that there is adequate support in place for people who might have been in one industry for a large part of their lives and now have to face redundancy, retraining and a shift in employment. When Alex Johnstone made a point about labour force mobility there was a collective intake of breath from Labour members, but we should not discount the idea so rapidly. Is it not better to get people to jobs in other areas, perhaps by upgrading transport links, than to leave them trapped in communities in which they do not have employment? Is it not better to have people in work than out of work?

We should also look at business mobility. Increasingly, new jobs do not depend on a geographical link to a particular part of the country. Many service industries can be set up in any part of the country, provided they have a skilled workforce and the appropriate infrastructure, particularly in communications.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member recognise that for some of our fragile communities across Scotland, one of the problems is depopulation? My family had to leave where they lived to get work. That had consequences for them, but there were also consequences for the people they left behind; it was difficult to generate any work in those communities and to support the services that the remaining people required.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Yes, there are issues about depopulation, but if we look at any time during Scotland’s economic history we will find that the population shifted as new opportunities became available in different parts of the country. We cannot expect the Government to end that practice. I appreciate that when there is significant depopulation in an area there are issues for the people who are left behind and for the encouragement of job creation in those local areas, but the idea that the Government can wish those issues away is naive.

Jeremy Purvis mentioned the incentives that the new UK Government is introducing on national insurance. That is one of the positive things that can be done to allow businesses to create jobs in local areas, which is presumably what we should be aiming to do. More than anything else, it is economic growth that will regenerate communities.

We had 16 years of uninterrupted economic growth between 1992 and 2008, before we got to the recession. If, after 16 years, areas still do not achieve the regeneration that is sought, do we say that the regeneration initiatives have failed or that we tried the wrong things? Or do we need to take a harder look at whether it is possible to regenerate to the full extent that we wish, even when we are living in the most benign of economic circumstances? We have to have economic circumstances that lead to such communities being sustainable in good times and bad. That is when infrastructure and transport links have a real part to play.

On the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, John Park made a valid point about the levering in of finance. We should be looking at that more generally, and some of the issues that the Government is looking at, such as JESSICA funding, which aims to lever in funding, are very valuable. We have to look at recycling funding and moving from a culture of grants to one of loans and equity to get more for our money. As with everything else, we have to consider funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust on its merits. It must be about what helps to create jobs. The future jobs fund, which the Labour Party was promoting, cost around £6,000 or £7,000 per job created. The regional selective assistance grants cost about £10,000 per job created. We need to have a debate about how we can most effectively sustain jobs.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Surely there is an interdependence between the approach that is taken at the UK level on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the Scottish Government’s approach. Does Derek Brownlee agree that it would be beneficial for us to know exactly what his party is planning to do at the UK level so that we can go forward together? We are interdependent: we share ideas and aspirations for what we can deliver for those communities.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am always keen for the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work well together. I cannot add anything to what Alex Johnstone said, which is that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in England has said that it will not be in a position to make any announcement on its funding. Of course we must try and work together to leverage in funding, but we must look at funding for CRT on its merits compared with other initiatives. That is one of my key points.

I note in passing that one of the most intriguing things that I heard in today’s debate was Alex Neil’s reference to his “reign”. I know that he has been criticised of late as misdescribing his position, but I did not realise that he had been elevated to monarch.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this morning’s Labour Party debate on regeneration.

I start by congratulating the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and supporting it and the work that it does. There is a strong mining heritage in Rutherglen and Cambuslang in the area that I represent, particularly in Cambuslang. A lot of strong figures emerged from there, including the former vice president of the National Union of Mineworkers, Mick McGahey, who worked at the Gateside pit close to where I grew up in Halfway.

I was reminded of the success of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust last year when I spoke at a conference in the Blantyre area, which neighbours the constituency that I represent. Blantyre is another strong mining community and it is important to recognise the work in the mines and the events that shaped such communities. In 1877, Blantyre had a pit disaster in which almost 200 people died. It brought the community together, and we can still see that in the Blantyre community today. It is important to support the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the funding that it makes available in areas such as Blantyre because we have to have a sense of community and of people sticking together. That is not only important for the generation of employment, it is important to help to reduce crime and to contribute to the well being of the area.

There is a strong industrial heritage in the area that I represent. The mines are long gone, although there is still a steel works. The strong manufacturing base that existed in Cambuslang and Rutherglen was attacked and undermined at the advent of the Thatcher Government in 1979, which pursued the policy of worshipping at the altar of Milton Friedman and controlling the money supply rather than supporting communities such as Cambuslang and Rutherglen. Many still remember when the steel works were closed, and there are people who worked there who never worked again. That is the legacy of the Thatcher years. Sadly, as John Park pointed out in his speech, there are generations of people who have not worked since. That gives us problems with life expectancy, health and the fabric of the area.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I take the member’s point about the Thatcher Government, but there were 13 years of Labour government after that, at the end of which the level of unemployment in Scotland was much higher than it had been at any point in the previous few years.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

As Mr Brownlee pointed out, we had unprecedented economic growth until 2008, and we had unprecedented levels of access to higher education. In the community that I represent, that has meant that many people who grew up in the schemes in the 1970s have graduated to carrying out professional, stable jobs, and they are able to make a positive contribution to the economy as a result of the positive impact of a Labour Government.

Jeremy Purvis rose—

I am sorry, but I must make progress.

The challenge for policy makers across the chamber is how to promote jobs and generate economic growth. The role of urban regeneration companies is vital. Frank McAveety spoke about the positive work that Clyde Gateway carries out. It is not just a matter of its work, but of what surrounds it. The Commonwealth games are coming up in 2014, and the M74 motorway is due for completion later this year. Those developments are very important, but we need the funding for Clyde Gateway to clear up the areas concerned and support economic growth.

I obviously welcome the fact that the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise have restored funding levels by not making the cuts that the Government proposed at the start of the budget process. Alex Neil and Stuart McMillan—who has left the chamber—should not kid us on. What kind of economic vision do they have if the budget process starts with a proposal for 46 per cent cuts to Clyde Gateway and 71 per cent cuts for the urban regeneration company in Greenock? That is a Government that is devoid of economic vision. No wonder the First Minister wrote a memo last month—which was leaked to all heads of department—that sought, within 24 hours, an economic policy for the next four years. No wonder—

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

What about Labour’s cuts?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

During the budget debate, Kenneth Gibson described the Glasgow airport rail link project as a white elephant. It would create 1,200 jobs and fit in with and support the Commonwealth games development. That shows how deficient the economic vision of the SNP is.

People such as Derek Brownlee have given up on many communities. He thinks that we have pumped enough money in and that the funding pipeline should be cut off. The SNP Government is deficient in terms of its economic vision. The Labour Party has lodged the motion we are debating this morning and provided the time to support and defend our communities and to continue to support jobs and economic growth.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

This is not the first regeneration debate in which I have taken part, but it is an issue to which we will inevitably and rightly return as long as parts of Scotland remain in need of improvement. There can be few MSPs who cannot think of parts of the area that they represent that could not benefit from being given a new lease of life through regeneration.

I am puzzled as to what Helen Eadie has done to her party to have her members’ business debate this evening usurped this morning, especially as I think that this is one of only two Labour debating mornings remaining this session. Perhaps it is because of a lack of vision and not having anything to say—that is the inevitable conclusion.

Coalfield regeneration is just one of many sorts of regeneration scheme. Like many members, I have seen the positive impact that the Scottish Government’s town centre regeneration fund has had in areas that I represent and the benefits that communities have enjoyed as a result. There are further successful regeneration projects that we can look forward to. The retail rocks project in Torry in Aberdeen, which is funded from the town centre regeneration fund, will help to create new businesses in the area. The project underlines the importance of successful small businesses in regenerating an area and makes Labour’s consistent failure to support the small business bonus scheme even more ill judged.

Also in Torry, it was announced earlier this year that the disused Bon Accord drinks factory could be in line for residential redevelopment, bringing much needed construction jobs to the city and creating commercial space and a more pleasant environment. Those steps to regenerate part of Aberdeen are important in their own right, but they are also a signal of intent to make real improvements in the city.

Aberdeen is examining the tax incremental funding model for providing finance for improvements through a number of projects in the city, funding growth through growth. The system has worked well in the United States and it certainly has potential in Scotland. Aside from the much publicised Union Terrace gardens, this funding mechanism is also being considered for extending the Aberdeen art gallery, regenerating Upper Denburn, preparing for the destruction and redevelopment of St Nicholas house and creating high-quality pedestrian routes through key city centre locations. It is a mechanism that can do a lot of good if it is successfully used to fund the right projects, and I know that people in various areas across Scotland will be watching what Aberdeen, and indeed Edinburgh, do with that funding model.

Housing is a key area that needs to be at the heart of a successful regeneration strategy. Abandoned properties can suck the life out of areas and accelerate the decline of a previously successful community. When an area is full of empty homes, it is little wonder that some residents take little pride in their community, do not feel safe in the area and actively seek to relocate. That is why the SNP’s desire to give councils the power to increase council tax on empty properties to fund the construction of new house building is so important. That measure would discourage properties going unused and help to create more modern homes in areas that badly need them.

The construction of new homes can have a real transformative effect on a community, returning it to a place where residents want to live. That is what makes the Scottish Government’s record of council house construction so important. More council houses were constructed last year than in the previous 20 years.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member regret the fact that the new building of housing association houses fell by 1,000 last year?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

In my view it does not matter who builds them—and that did not happen anyway. The 1,000 new council houses built by the SNP represent positive action happening. They do not have to be built by housing associations—and in fact that number did not fall. The SNP is committed to having another 5,000 built over the next parliamentary session. Communities are gaining a new lease of life and people’s quality of life is immeasurably improved after four years of this Government. The construction of new homes is just as important a form of regeneration as upgrading a town centre or providing new opportunities.

Whoever provides it—it has to be community led through community planning partnerships and the community has to be fully involved—successful regeneration can bring vibrancy back to local communities and improve quality of life and opportunities. It brings money back to areas and regenerates pride in the local community. In these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever that the right approach to regeneration is in place and that we ensure that every penny is spent to maximum effect.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I apologise to Jeremy Purvis for my earlier comments—I had Jim Tolson in mind. I am surprised and a little bit angry that Jim Tolson has not been in the chamber this morning for such an important debate for mining villages, the vast majority of which he represents.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

For the member’s information, Mr Tolson is currently engaged in a meeting with the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, dealing with transport issues that are relevant to his constituency. The member’s comment was completely unnecessary.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I had a meeting arranged for this morning with Alex Neil, who has left the chamber for the moment, but I am here because this is such an important debate. The issue is very important to both the Labour Party and people throughout Scotland.

I also take great exception to the point that Maureen Watt made. I am at the heart of discussions with colleagues in the Labour Party on this important matter. We thought that the issue was so important that it needed a good airing this morning, which is why we are getting two opportunities to discuss it today.

Jeremy Purvis talked about the work on the matter being ad hoc. I am the temporary chair of the industrial communities alliance and, week in, week out, I write to ministers on behalf of the alliance. I had to reschedule my meeting with the minister this morning, although my colleagues are meeting Jim Mather, who is substituting for him.

Alex Neil, who is not in the chamber to hear this point, talked about the JESSICA fund. That is not a grant fund; it is a loan fund, it is European money and it is very different from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust money. The minister has also been tardy in making any announcement on European social funding and European regional development funding for communities across Scotland. It is to his shame that that work is not being given more serious prominence.

I am delighted to be taking part in the debate. In my book, one of the finest things that the Labour Government did in recent years was establish the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in 1999 to ensure that the need for jobs for ex-miners was recognised. The then coalfield communities campaign—now the industrial communities alliance—was a driving force in securing funding from the Labour Government to create the CRT, which it recognised as being paramount to the need of the towns and villages to have regeneration initiatives.

The minister appears to be very amused by the discussion that we are having—he is having a conversation with his colleague rather than listening to the debate—but I take the matter seriously.

The map shows that the coalfield areas are relatively small. In developing the rules for the CRT, the benchmark was the situation in 1981: only communities in which 10 per cent of the population worked in the pits in 1981 are eligible for funding. We are, therefore, talking about only a small amount of money, but the Government is going to slash it. The minister proposes a 68 per cent cut in the funding for those communities.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What has the member got to say about her big pal Gordon Brown cheating 2,000 Scottish miners out of their compensation for pneumoconiosis?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Gordon Brown worked very closely with Thompsons Solicitors in Glasgow—a firm that is renowned for its work in helping to secure compensation for miners. In response to a question from one of Alex Neil’s SNP colleagues in the Westminster Parliament, we were told that more than £6 billion was claimed in compensation for miners under the previous Labour Government. The minister should not try to lecture us on that.

I abhor the minister’s attempts to cut the funding to the extent that he is going to cut it. He proposes to cut the funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust by 68 per cent, and he should be ashamed of himself for that. Today, more than ever, the funding is crucial to former mining towns and villages, especially in the wake of the reductions in European social funding and European regional development funding. More than £10 million has been invested in a huge range of social regeneration activities throughout Scotland, all targeted at revitalising communities that are still suffering from the devastating effects of colliery closures. The minister faces a huge embarrassment because he does not know what the Westminster Government is going to do in terms of funding the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. If an announcement is made of massive funding for the CRT in the coming weeks but, in the meantime, he has been talking about cutting its funding colossally, that will embarrass him completely.

One of the main aims of the CRT in Scotland is to unlock the huge potential of those who live and work in former mining towns. Around 35,000 people have benefited from the support of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. More than 200 people have been helped into work; more than 400 people have been helped to gain new qualifications; more than 80 new jobs have been created; and 800 volunteers and 40 new social enterprises have been funded. Those projects are vital and require specialist skills—not the kind of skills that JESSICA loan funding can be used to develop, but skills that are fed by the essential grant funding that is available from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. Those skills have been developed in organisations such as West Fife Enterprise, which Jim Mather promised to visit. I do not know what has happened to that promise; it has disappeared like snow off a dyke. That is symptomatic of the promises that we get from the SNP Government regarding its commitment to help former coal-mining communities.

The minister has not announced any funding for Fife today, so we are going to see a massive cut in the Coalfields Regeneration Trust money in Fife and that is not good enough. On behalf of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, I ask the minister to make a commitment to restore full funding to the trust in the years ahead and into the foreseeable future. I hope that he will at least have the decency to recognise the hard work and the special, innovative commitment that we have seen from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Given that my grandfather was killed in the pits and my father was invalided out of the pits after an accident, it is no surprise that I will concentrate my remarks on the coalfield communities in Fife. Those communities were devastated by pit closures under both Tory and Labour Governments. It is important to remember that, when the Tories came to power in 1979, there were no longer any pits in Kinglassie, Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly, Methil, Bowhill, Kelty, Ballingry, Crosshill, Lumphinnans and Cardenden—Labour had already closed them down.

I welcome the support that has been given to Methil by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the significant financial support that has been given by the Scottish Government to the Fife energy park through regional selective assistance and grant from Scottish Enterprise. That is the big hope in a generation for Methil, and that kind of investment in regeneration will improve our communities.

On Monday, I attended a meeting of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and local people in the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation club in Glenrothes. The community had had grant application after grant application to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust turned down over the years, and the purpose of the meeting was to find out why Glenrothes was not a coalfield area. The explanation was that the 1999 map of coalfield areas that was drawn up by the UK Government was based on a research study that highlighted areas where, in 1981, more than 10 per cent of the population were miners. That was then overlaid with areas of multiple deprivation. Those of us present were astonished to find out that Glenrothes—which was created as a new town in 1948 to service the ill-fated Glenrothes pit—had never been on the original map. So, year after year, the money that has been made available to other communities has not been made available to Glenrothes.

By any definition, Glenrothes or at least part of it—especially the older areas of Woodside and Auchmuty—must be a coalfield community; yet, since 1999, it has not received a penny because it has never been designated as a coalfield community. The name of the venue for that meeting—the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—gives a clue as to the importance of coal mining to Glenrothes. It is beyond belief that, since 1999, the UK Government has not regarded Glenrothes as a coalfield community. I would be grateful if the minister would give an undertaking that he will work with the UK Government to ensure that there is a fairer acknowledgement of what a coalfield community is and that part of Glenrothes will be included in that.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member work with the Labour Party to try to persuade the minister that it would be a good idea to sustain the funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and to not only restore what was cut this year, but guarantee funding for the next two years?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

What I will say is that, with regard to Glenrothes, which is clearly a coalfield community but which has had no access to any of that money over the years, what is important is that people in the communities that I represent have an opportunity to get some of the grant money that is available.

Many people have said today that this debate is about people. That is true. I have some respect for John Park, but not when he uses people in the coalfield communities that he represents as an excuse for making political points. My respect for him is further diminished by his utter failure, which is shared by every Labour MSP in the chamber, to condemn the shameful treatment by the Labour Government of our ex-miners and their families. Some 2,000 miners in Scotland died while they were waiting for compensation that they were entitled to, while the Labour Government went to court to try to stop the payments. More than 8,000 miners in the UK waited more than 10 years for a settlement. Helen Eadie says that she is proud of that record, but it is a record that no person could be proud of. In addition to that, in order to fund some of the compensation, the Labour Government, like the Tories before it, pinched the miners’ pension money—the money that the miners had put into their own pension fund.

Of the miners who died while waiting for compensation, 135 were in my constituency of Central Fife—I would have thought that Mr Park would have been interested in this, but I see that he is not—and 179 were in Gordon Brown’s constituency, both of which areas John Park represents as a regional MSP. That betrayal of the coalfield communities is a disgrace. By its silence, Labour condemns itself.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you give guidance to those members who are present about the rules about the attendance, during the winding-up speeches, of members who have participated in the debate? I ask that with regard to the prolonged and continuing absence of Mr Frank McAveety, who spoke earlier.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr McAveety has already given me his apologies. That is a procedural matter.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Having done a rough calculation, I think that it is 69 days—

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Seventy-one.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I accept Duncan McNeil’s correction. For those who are not aware of what we are talking about—I am sure that most members are—that is the time until the election. It therefore comes as no great surprise to me or to anyone else that, during the course of the debate, we have heard a series of re-election speeches from members of all parties, not excluding the minister, who I see is chiding me for suggesting that that is the case.

As members across the chamber have said, the regeneration of our coalfield communities is an important issue. During the debate, there has been a worrying trend towards selective amnesia. As a regional member who represents the Lanarkshire area, I know that the change of administration in Falkirk Council—it is now a Labour-led council—has caused a stutter in relation to the Falkirk Gateway regeneration project. Further, the Ravenscraig development has been stalled for some time, partly due to intransigence on the part of the Government and partly due to intransigence on the part of the local Labour administration—I am even-handed in my criticism, as I am sure that the minister acknowledges.

There is a high degree of hypocrisy among Labour members. For the most part, over the past 30 years, the direction of funding in relation to the regeneration of all the coal-mining areas has been channelled in one way or another through the local authorities of those areas—development agencies notwithstanding—and the fact is that most of those areas have been in the control of the Labour Party. Therefore, for Labour members to sit here, 69 or 71 days away from an election, beating their breasts about the inadequacy of regeneration is, quite frankly, laughable.

Although he was speaking with some degree of self interest with regard to his own constituency matters—which is understandable, as it is with us all—Jeremy Purvis made a balanced observation in relation to the way in which regeneration is organised. He highlighted a disconnect in relation to the number of organisations in this area. The document “Mechanisms for Preparation of Strategies for Industrial Communities” lists 14 organisations. That is neither efficient nor effective. Mr Purvis’s point in relation to how we focus the organisation of the regeneration effort was perfectly reasonable with regard to the regional development banks and the role of the colleges. At the moment, a shotgun approach is being taken, which appears not to be working.

Patricia Ferguson made relevant observations about the work that is being done in Maryhill around the canal basin and on the burgh halls—I look forward to seeing those new stained glass windows being installed.

As I said, some of the contributions have been remarkably short on long-term memory. Mr McAveety—when he was here—referred to the reorganisation of Glasgow. I was employed in Glasgow during the late 1970s and early 1980s and I have to say that, in many instances, public funding and regional support grants became a job creation scheme for people who were associated with the Labour Party. Many organisations came and went, were regenerated, died again and were reincarnated like phoenixes from the ashes—I am thinking of GEAR, Glasgow Development Agency, Glasgow Opportunities and so on. They all purported to solve the problems that our city had at that time and none of them was successful.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

When I was a Glasgow councillor, we were advised that £500 million had been spent under the Conservative Government on attempts to regenerate Glasgow, yet the postcode areas that were the poorest before the regeneration money was spent were still the poorest afterwards. I asked the council—whose leader was Mr McAveety—for a report on which regeneration activities were successful and which were unsuccessful, so that we did not repeat the mistakes of the past. A decade later, I do not think that that report has been produced.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I can make no comment on that, given that, at that time, I was looking at the situation from the perspective of someone who was involved in a commercial organisation that was seeking to regenerate bits of the east end of Glasgow. I know the challenges that that organisation faced because of the extent to which there was a closed shop—I use that term advisedly—with regard to who got access to the funds.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This morning’s debate is about the motion that has been lodged, and we would like some clarity about the Liberal Democrats’ position. Do they support the further funding of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I advise you to watch your time.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I will be brief. As I think was clear from Jeremy Purvis’s opening remarks, we support the proposal.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Robert Burns famously came up with a line in which he said that he aspired to a point at which

“Man to Man the warld o’er,

shall brothers be”.

Many of us in this chamber have been working in Scotland for many years, and we know that although there are many differences in attitude, outlook and philosophy in Scotland, we all manage to find something in common. The sad thing about this debate is that I have managed to find, in what I have heard from the Labour Party, something that either I do not understand or, if I understand it, I do not like. Scotland certainly has economic and social troubles, but there are different communities and different levels of opportunity throughout the country. Scotland is not plagued by unemployment and social degradation; it has wealthy and less wealthy areas and it has successful and less successful areas.

What I learned today came from the sharp intake of breath from the Labour benches when I mentioned workforce mobility in my opening speech—yet Scotland has been famous for workforce mobility. Scotland has exported its talented people all over the world and when the country has had industrial success it has demonstrated that it brings in people from all over the world. In large areas of Scotland, in the east, the north-east and parts of the north, where there is economic growth, jobs are all too often filled by people who have come here from Poland and the Baltic states—and welcome they are, too, because our economy depends on them.

Why, then, is there such reluctance in some areas of Scotland to look at the opportunities that exist in Scotland to take our talented and able young people into long-term employment?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I must carry on.

We have been considering the coalfields. For many reasons, of which some might be the fault of previous Governments and others are the result of the economic situation in which we find ourselves, a large number of towns and villages with substantial populations have high unemployment, because there has not been success in attracting new jobs to those areas.

Members of all parties agree that in many cases the way to deal with the problem is by retraining and educating people and creating the skilled workforce that we need for the 21st century. However, the Labour Party appears to be fundamentally opposed to the idea that people should take jobs outside their communities.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member please let me develop my argument?

Some of us want Scotland to succeed, with vibrant, well-trained young Scottish people entering jobs in the Scottish economy. Some of us regard the priority as being to keep those young people where they are.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member is misrepresenting the position of Labour members. In my opening speech I said that it is about providing skills for young people so that they can move into opportunities, regardless of where they are. It is about investing in young people.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If I am misrepresenting the position of Labour members, I apologise, but the message that I have taken from more than one speech is that the Labour Party wants to set the protection of some communities above opportunities for the young people who have been born and raised in those communities. What I hear is a Labour Party that would prefer to breed the culture of dependency and continue the client economy in its heartlands, rather than provide the opportunities that could be afforded to people in Scotland.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I must carry on.

I apologise again, because I know that work is needed in many communities throughout Scotland. I know that regeneration is important in many communities that have suffered enormous deprivation. However, it is not just about structure or building houses; it is about training for employment and putting young people into work.

During the dark days of the 1980s, when unemployment was high, there was a slogan: let us train the workers without jobs to do the jobs without workers. It was often the butt of jokes, because if there is a surplus of blacksmiths and a shortage of brain surgeons—well, we do not want to go there. In Scotland we have the opportunity to train the workers without jobs to do the jobs without workers, but we must do all that we can to ensure that the workers without jobs can go where the jobs are. Scotland can provide enormous opportunity for our young people, but it is not just about retraining; it is about ensuring that we put young people where the jobs are. Let us not close our minds to that opportunity.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The debate has been fairly heated, but it has not been bad, in many respects, and some light has been shed, in some speeches.

I pick up on the point that I think that Frank McAveety first made, on the importance of tackling youth unemployment. Irrespective of the communities that we are dealing with, some of which we would not describe as deprived, levels of youth unemployment are far too high, not only in Scotland but throughout the UK.

That is why I emphasise the high priority that the Scottish Government has given to dealing with youth unemployment, within our remit and the resources that are available to us. As I said, John Swinney announced 25,000 modern apprenticeships for next year, 7,000 flexible training opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, an extra 1,200 college places and an additional £15 million for college bursaries. We are providing more than 40,000 training opportunities, with a further 34,500 new opportunities committed for 2011-12.

On top of that, 86.8 per cent of the young people who left school in the academic year 2009-10 were in a positive destination approximately three months after the end of the academic year, which is the highest-ever proportion of positive destinations. That is especially significant in the challenging circumstances. The proportion of school leavers who enter further or higher education approximately three months after the end of the academic year has risen from 56 per cent in 2007-08 to 62.8 per cent in 2009-10. That is also a record high.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister knows that apprenticeships are close to my heart. There was an increase in apprenticeships last year and an increase is proposed this year. Will the minister say how many of the new apprenticeship places will be for school leavers and young people under 24?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The precise breakdown is to be agreed, but we will send John Park the details when that has happened.

I have set out what the Government has done, but I do not think that it is enough. If additional resources were available to us we would do even more. I hope that Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will provide additional resources specifically to tackle youth unemployment in the budget on 23 March.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am afraid that I must move on.

Some comments about URCs have not been entirely accurate. We have had a positive discussion with the chair and chief executive of the board of Riverside Inverclyde. One reason why the company’s budget is slightly lower than that of other URCs is that the company has advanced spending on projects this year. That partly explains the scale of the year-on-year change in its budget. We must take such matters into consideration, rather than simply look at the crude figures. I have read scaremongering stories in local newspapers about the James Watt dock development and the Greenock Arts Guild theatre, none of which has been accurate.

We are doing an enormous amount with the Clyde Gateway project in the east end of Glasgow, not just in relation to the core role of the URC but to secure the legacy from the Commonwealth games in 2014. Unprecedented investment is going into that part of Glasgow.

We should not make the mistake of equating the core budgets of URCs or any other development agency, including the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, with the total investment in the areas that they cover. As John Park said, a great advantage of such organisations is that they have the capability to leverage in additional money. Indeed, the money that they leverage in often far exceeds the organisation’s core budget. That is why it has been essential to maintain budgets.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

That is obviously testament to the fantastic work of the local constituency MSP in generating that level of investment in the east end of Glasgow. The important question that I raised in my nuanced contribution was whether that can continue. Robert Crawford’s letter to the Government and Scottish Enterprise was about maintaining that level of commitment to provide the opportunity for the private sector investment that the minister so understandably comments on.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Those decisions will be taken by the new Government, because of the agreement throughout the chamber that whoever is elected on 5 May will prepare a three-year spending programme from next year onwards. However, I anticipate our making that kind of decision to show our continuing commitment to the area.

I say to Patricia Ferguson that through the transformational regeneration area approach in Glasgow, including Maryhill, we have agreed substantial investment in housing and other matters, and the framework agreements are now in place. Maryhill, along with Laurieston and Gallowgate, has been picked as one of the three early action priority areas for investment. The Scottish ministers have agreed to waive the disposal clawback agreement for all TRAs, allowing any receipts generated through private sector activity to be recycled into the regeneration programme across all eight areas.

So, if we look at the investment in the town centre regeneration fund, the Glasgow Housing Association, the other budgets in housing in Glasgow and all the other budgets under John Swinney’s control, we can see that we are making massive investment in the city of Glasgow and it is right that we should do so.

Similarly, in the coalfield areas, if we add up the investment in the communities, we see that it is at an unprecedented level.

One of the other points that I want to emphasise—I forget who made it—is that if we are to be successful in regeneration, the role of community empowerment is critical. The community must be actively involved in the decision making, not as consultees but as decision makers.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not have time, unfortunately.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have time if you wish.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Right. I will take the intervention.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the minister explain to me how my people in my constituency will benefit from the JESSICA fund, which is a loan fund, in the way that he describes?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

They will benefit enormously, because it will bring about investment and will leverage additional funds from Europe and elsewhere into that area. I am happy to explain that in more detail when I have more time—such as in the member’s debate tonight.

There is a real dilemma at the heart of Labour’s policy. Irrespective of what the debate is, Labour demands that we keep budgets as they are or increase them—whether in relation to the housing association grant, the total amount spent on housing, the amount spent on the CRT or on a whole panoply of other organisations and programmes—but it has not said how it will fund all that expenditure, given that it will face the same cuts from Westminster that this Government faces.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No. I am sorry, but I have too much to say.

Those cuts have totalled more than £2 billion in real terms over this year and next year. If Labour is committed to all the expenditure that it has listed—we have counted at least £1.7 billion additional expenditure—it has to tell us what it will cut. Of course, the secret is that Labour has said that it will not protect the health budget, so the only conclusion that one can reach about the core of Labour’s financial policy is that it will strip the health service of badly needed capital and staffing investment in order to pay for its own pet projects. In other words, Labour’s core strategy is to close accident and emergency units such as Monklands and use that money for GARL and other projects for which the business case is very weak indeed.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Minister, can you get back on to the subject please?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

This is very relevant to the subject, Presiding Officer.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

It had better be.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is about how the money is spent and where one gets it to spend in all these areas.

My officials have had a very constructive dialogue with the CRT. We await its proposal on how it can continue to have an impact in the coalfield areas in future. We have told it that, like everybody else, we need to look at how we can make money go further. I am very keen to ensure that the trust maintains the essential capacity and capability so that it can continue to invest in coalfield communities and, more important, focus that investment on job-creating activity, which is what will ensure the economic survival of those areas. That is our policy. We will support the trust, but we want it to be even more effective in future, to leverage even more investment into the coalfield areas and to give priority to job creation.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

For the avoidance of doubt, the minister is making a cut of 68 per cent, guaranteeing one year’s money and then asking the CRT how it will spend that money—that is the level he is operating at. He is not sustaining the funding that was there before; he is asking the trust to continue to contribute with a cut of 68 per cent, while taking the ludicrous position of not even telling the trust what it will have for the two subsequent years. People will judge his remarks on that basis.

This is an important debate. People have asked, at a basic level, what the point of the debate is. First, it appears to have secured something of a U-turn on the urban regeneration companies, although with the SNP one always has to read the small print later. However, the ludicrous, economically illiterate decision to cut the funding might have been stayed.

The debate has also exposed the reality of the SNP’s attitude towards and views on the coal-mining communities, which we all know suffered so much in the past. What happened to the coal-mining communities and industry in Scotland is totemic; it is a symbol of what Thatcher and her cronies did to Scotland. It is no surprise that today’s Daily Record says of the minister’s decision:

“It’s Like Thatcher All Over Again”.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have the statistics from the National Coal Board Scottish area: 52 pits closed under Wilson and Callaghan, which is more than four times the number that closed under Thatcher. Should Johann Lamont not be a little more contrite about the impact that the Labour Party in government had on the mining communities?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The Conservatives ought not to deny their own history. They wilfully destroyed mining communities, and the people of Scotland remember that.

Kenny Gibson talked about money being wasted in Glasgow. The SNP’s solution is simply to rip money out of Glasgow, rip off Glasgow and deny it the jobs that it requires.

We know that there is a need for co-ordination on regeneration. I would be interested to know whether there is currently a role for the Scottish centre for regeneration in the Scottish Government, because it is critical that there is co-ordination on these issues and that local people are involved in decisions on regeneration. There are concerns about how community planning is being rolled forward and how people are engaged.

Alex Johnstone talked about mobility. He basically said that the problems caused by economic decisions in the 1980s were the fault of the people in the communities who suffered for them; he blamed those people for not being willing to move. That is clearly nonsense. The CRT recognises that if we skill people, they might choose to go elsewhere, but if they are not skilled and the communities are not regenerated, we have not just people who are not working; we have all the social consequences of that, too.

It is disappointing that Alex Neil has chosen to collude with the Conservatives’ view. Particularly in his opening speech, he settled for debating points rather than action. The immutable law of the minister is that the louder he is, the dodgier ground he is on.

It is frustrating that he talks on the one hand about spending a fortune of money and on the other hand about needing to cut this little bit of money to the CRT. What is the logic in that? I am at a loss to understand why, for the want of £1.5 million a year, he would choose to cut the feet from an organisation that has a proven record. To be charitable to Alex Neil, it might simply be that he has not won the argument with his Cabinet colleagues.

I get depressed when the SNP colludes with the Tories, in particular, in setting out the self-serving analysis that the country’s current deficit has been caused by spending too much money on public services. Such collusion might serve the nationalists’ party interest in the short term but the problem is that the Tories’ solution—to slash public spending—will leave our communities abandoned. We know that the Tories destroyed the mining communities in the 1980s; Alex Johnstone himself talked about the dark days of the 1980s, as if his party had nothing to do with them. We remember how at that time the Tories said that unemployment was a price worth paying. Nothing has changed. Those communities will now have to suffer disproportionately from decisions made at UK level with the collusion of the SNP, which will not say that it was not public spending that caused the problem.

Regeneration is not just about physical regeneration or doing good things for people; it is about supporting people to achieve their potential. The nature of the communities that are being regenerated is critical and any approach must be shaped by the different issues that arise in each of the different communities. That is why the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s distinct nature is important. After all, this is not just about creating jobs; it is also about giving people the skills to access those jobs and tackling any barriers that they might have.

In the foreword to “Building a Sustainable Future”, Alex Neil says:

“Achieving equality of place and people are central aims of this Government’s Economic Strategy.”

That should be the case, but under his watch Scottish Enterprise has been stripped of any such role. As a result, the importance of that aim is not recognised by one of the critical agencies. It is a classic example of a Scottish Government that is great on strategies and talking but which is neither delivering on the ground nor doing the heavy lifting that, as Duncan McNeil made clear, is important in government.

Moreover, this regeneration document is not even a consultation paper; it is a discussion paper. The irony is that in the past the SNP spent its life condemning key decisions—decisions supported by our colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party—that created jobs and built schools; now, instead of getting any action, we are left having a chat.

Of course, the regeneration of housing plays a critical role and the minister quite rightly referred to the wider role of housing associations and housing co-operatives. However, he continues to make a ludicrous and false division between housing associations and council housing and denies the critical role that housing associations and co-operatives can play in driving regeneration in local communities, demanding instead that councils listen to what the Government wants to do. I find it dispiriting that the collapse this year in housing association building will lead to a loss of energy in regeneration, and I am disturbed that housing associations across the country are now saying that they will not be building any more and, indeed, are stopping projects.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I merely point out that we are building twice as many housing association houses as Labour did when Johann Lamont was minister.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

That is precisely my point. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is false and ludicrous to talk about how 73 more council houses were built last year while destroying the organisations that have driven community regeneration over the past 10 years.

There is an issue about supporting local government in regeneration, but rolling up all local government moneys on a per capita distribution basis leaves us unable to address the question of need in some of our poorest communities. It is not just about the formula; it is also about directing resources to particular areas with problems.

We know that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has been doing a lot of work. The arguments have been made about what it can deliver. It can, for example, reach parts of communities that the National Lottery was not able to reach. We do not know what is going to happen at a UK level but would it not be stunning if a Tory-led UK Government turned out to be more supportive of the trust than our self-styled miners’ friend in the SNP? Members should be in absolutely no doubt—however one looks at it, a 68 per cent cut will destroy huge amounts of the work that the trust wants to do. Why end something that is self-evidently working? Why provide only one year’s funding, which can only increase instability? Tricia Marwick seemed to be arguing that, given the definition of a coalfield area, we should end funding for it altogether—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You must close, please.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Instead, she should be arguing for that funding to be sustained. Then we can argue about the formula that is used.

If I could finish on this last point—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Very quickly, please.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Back in 2007, SNP back benchers lavished praise on the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. If every one of them who spoke in favour of it then votes for it this afternoon, we will be able to sustain these communities with this funding.

I urge the chamber to support our motion.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That concludes this morning’s debate on regeneration.

Third Sector Support 2011-12

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what financial support it will provide to the third sector in 2011-12. (S3O-13100)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish Government will continue to provide a broad range of financial support to the third sector across all portfolios. For example, we have announced the new £5 million early years and early intervention fund; we will continue to support third sector organisations working with children, young people and families with £7.1 million through the unified voluntary sector fund; and we are providing an additional £10.3 million in 2011-12 to community organisations through the climate challenge fund. In addition, in 2011-12 we will increase the core third sector budget by 16 per cent, or £24 million, and we have added a further £3 million to the Scottish investment fund. That builds on the £91 million that has already been invested in core third sector development in the period from 2008 to 2011. Finally, last week, I was pleased to announce details of the £10 million community jobs Scotland scheme, which will give up to 2,000 young unemployed people the opportunity to experience paid jobs in the third sector, to gain new skills and to contribute positively to their community.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his answer, particularly the announcement of funding for new initiatives. However, does he agree that organisations such as Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire in my constituency, which supports North Lanarkshire’s voluntary sector, provide an invaluable range of services to voluntary groups and organisations in our communities? Is he aware that those organisations are concerned that, despite having been told that they will receive funding, they have not as yet received any details of exactly how much money they will receive in core grant this year? If they do not receive any confirmation by 1 March, they will have no choice but to issue redundancy notices to their staff. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that that is not what the Scottish Government would wish—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Quickly, please, Ms Whitefield.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm exactly how much each council for voluntary service in each area will receive next year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The funding distribution to CVS organisations will be undertaken shortly; indeed, I imagine that it will be in place before 1 March 2011. However, I say to Karen Whitefield that it certainly would not be in place if she had got her way a fortnight ago and the Government’s budget had been defeated, because there would be no financial allocation to make. Perhaps she will point that out to her constituents in Airdrie and Shotts.

North Lanarkshire Council (Meetings)

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met officials from North Lanarkshire Council’s learning and leisure department. (S3O-13009)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government is in regular contact with North Lanarkshire learning and leisure officials. Last summer, I met representatives of the community planning partnership, and the Minister for Children and Early Years has had separate meetings with the council.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with North Lanarkshire learning and leisure officials about the school building programme? Has the placement of the St Andrew’s high school campus building been raised, in light of the decision to proceed with its construction on top of a former landfill site and the site of mine workings with a number of associated mineshafts and air vents? On a related issue, might the Scottish Government be asked to sanction further borrowing powers if the choice of site causes the cost of construction to go well over budget?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

My officials discuss details of school buildings with every local authority. We are absolutely determined to do two things, the first of which is to take the maximum number of young people out of unacceptable buildings. In that respect, I am very pleased about the 330 buildings that this Administration has managed to achieve, which is well beyond anything that was planned by any other party. Of course, if any problems are identified in the process of planning a building, my officials will discuss them in detail with the council. If the member wishes to meet those officials to discuss the issue, I will be happy to facilitate such a meeting.

Forth Replacement Crossing (Procurement)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The procurement of the Forth replacement crossing project has been separated into three contracts. Tenders were received for the principal contract, which includes the bridge and the approach roads, on 28 January 2011, and they are being assessed. The principal contract is on programme for award in April 2011. The intention is to issue the invitation to submit final tenders for the Fife intelligent transport system contract this week, and for the M9 junction 1A contract in early April. Those contracts are on programme for awards in May and July 2011 respectively.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Can the minister assure us that the Government is doing everything it can to afford opportunities to Scottish businesses to get involved not only in those tenders, but in smaller pieces of work in this unique project? Does he accept that a range of concerns exist about the project? For example, why has the Government decided to go ahead with contract announcements during purdah, given the impression that that gives to some people and the need for an incoming Government to be 100 per cent signed up to the delivery and detail of the contract? Finally, does he accept that there is local concern that the Government’s guarantee to BP that at least £100 million will potentially be given on every occasion that there is a pipeline rupture was heard in private, when everyone in Queensferry knows where the pipeline is and pipeline concerns did not figure in local consultations or the Parliament’s Forth Crossing Bill Committee’s work?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I will deal with the last point first. There were good reasons why that was heard in private, and I do not intend to go further into that issue today. However, I am happy to answer the point about the announcement being made in April. I understand why some people—some in the Labour Party, for example—who see the project as a waste of money should think that there is no real urgency, but most of the rest of us believe that the project is vital. The reason why we have had the dual process of going through Parliament and advancing the procurement process as quickly as we have done is that the project is vital, and the first possible chance that we will have to make an announcement—I think that this has been cleared with the Presiding Officer—is April, shortly after the contracts have been awarded. That is why that is happening. Things are happening as quickly as they possibly can because we see the project as vital.

I am happy to give Margaret Smith the assurance that I gave at stage 3. We are engaging and we will engage. We have already held an event with small businesses to ensure that they can maximise the opportunities that exist for them.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Would the minister be prepared to set up baseline traffic and environmental monitoring for areas around the Forth replacement crossing, particularly on the A904 in Newton village, which is in my constituency, prior to any contracts being signed?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

We do not want to do anything at this stage that would delay the award of the principal contract in particular. There are also tight timescales for the other contracts, but I am happy to take away Mary Mulligan’s suggestion, ask officials to look into the matter, and come back to her on the substantive issue.

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (Meetings)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met Strathclyde partnership for transport and what issues were discussed. (S3O-13090)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I last met the chair of SPT, Jonathan Findlay, and its interim chief executive, Gordon MacLennan, on 27 January 2011, when a range of issues were discussed. I also met the chief executive on 23 February 2011, when I opened the new park-and-ride facility at Croy.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I understand that the Government has the business case for the much-needed modernisation of Glasgow’s subway system from SPT and that officials are content that they have everything that they require. I welcome the planned upgrade of Hillhead underground in my constituency, which will start in July, but the funding will soon run out. I have a strong interest in the matter, as half of the stations in the system are within the Glasgow Kelvin constituency. When will the Scottish Government be able to make a decision on the business case for the underground modernisation? If it is to make a decision, will it or will it not be made in this parliamentary session?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

First, it is worth confirming to Pauline McNeill, as I have done to other MSPs who have been in touch about the issue, that the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to helping to make subway modernisation happen. We are convinced of the case for it, which is why our officials have worked closely with SPT officials to bring forward the business case along with the accompanying request for funding support. Those came to ministers quite recently and are being considered. We will make an announcement as soon as we are able to do so.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister knows about my on-going interest in subway modernisation, as I have met him and the previous transport minister to discuss the matter. I will meet the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth this afternoon to discuss the matter further. Does the minister agree that another key reason why subway modernisation is vital is that 100,000 extra passengers frequented Glasgow’s subway in December last year during the period of bad weather while overground transport was seriously hampered?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I agree with Bob Doris and have made it clear to Pauline McNeill that there is a compelling case for the modernisation of Glasgow’s subway. Obviously, such modernisations involve large sums of public money, which is in fairly short supply at the moment, so we are right to take the necessary time to ensure that we make the right investment at the right time. As I have said, the business case and the accompanying request for funding support came to ministers fairly recently—on 22 December, I think—and we are considering them urgently, but I accept Bob Doris’s point. Passengers very much valued the underground’s ability to help to address the winter resilience issues that we had.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

How much funding has been set aside for 2011-12 to contribute to fastlink? Is that funding the entirety of the Government’s contribution?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

It is only right that we should wait and see what the various partners involved come forward with on the funding that they intend to contribute. My experience of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line was that that was how the previous Administration sought to advance matters. We should see what the partners that propose the project are willing to contribute before we come to a conclusion on the Scottish Government’s contribution. However, I can confirm that allowance has been made for that in the budgetary year to which the member referred.

Scottish Borders (Economic Development)

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting economic development in the Scottish Borders. (S3O-13030)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We are working with the south of Scotland alliance, which is a partnership of Scottish Borders Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Enterprise, to facilitate its competitiveness strategy, and we have transferred responsibility for local economic development, including the business gateway, to local authorities. Already this year, more than 200 businesses have been helped to start up in the Borders. Our delivery agencies support a range of projects in sectors that are key to the Borders economy, such as tourism, textiles, food and forestry, and we continue to improve the business environment through the small business bonus scheme, reducing business rates for more than 3,000 businesses in the Borders, reducing unnecessary burdens through better planning and procurement, and encouraging easier access to public sector contracts. This week, we have announced a £10 million fund to encourage small and medium-sized companies to take on staff, and we are working with Scottish Development International and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce to assist the export potential of Borders businesses.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The minister will be aware of, and has been supportive of, moves to secure faster and more reliable broadband and mobile telephony for the Scottish Borders, which are critical for the future economic wellbeing of the region. He will also be aware that the Scottish Government ranked the Highlands broadband bid to the United Kingdom Government’s Broadband delivery UK over that of the south of Scotland. Most of that area is in my constituency. As there is a new process going forward, will the Scottish Government work proactively to support the proposal from the south of Scotland, which includes the Borders, to secure additional funding support? I am aware that the parliamentary session is nearing its end, but will the minister have time to meet me and local agencies to discuss how that partnership working can be taken forward for the better securing of faster broadband in the Scottish Borders?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will cut to the chase: I would welcome the opportunity to meet Mr Purvis. We have recently raised the issue of the south of Scotland in conversations with United Kingdom ministers and we are working assiduously to ensure that the Scottish Borders case is as strong as it can be and that lessons are learned from other cases that have already passed the test.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the small business bonus scheme to which he referred has protected local firms and safeguarded local jobs, that more than 8,000 local firms have paid no rates or have had their rates significantly reduced, and that that approach contrasts with the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats, who pose as guardians of local businesses but oppose taxing Tesco superstores that undermine the viability of small businesses?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Having just finished an answer in a collegiate fashion, I have no option but to agree with Mrs Grahame. There was an opportunity to show cohesion with the vast mass of Borders businesses and many people throughout the Borders who face hard times and uncertainty, but that opportunity was lost. However, I am sure that Mrs Grahame will capitalise on it.

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will fund continuing care beds at the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. (S3O-13064)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The number of continuing care beds is a matter for the health board concerned, but members will be aware that the situation with continuing care beds in the west of the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area has fundamentally changed as a result of recent developments around the Blawarthill proposals. That requires NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to look at the situation afresh and, accordingly, it has agreed to conduct a review. The chair of the NHS board has written to the chair of St Margaret’s seeking a meeting to discuss the hospice’s involvement in the review. I hope that members will welcome that. I have asked the chairman of the board to give me a full report immediately following the meeting.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Given the collapse of the plans for 60 continuing care beds at Blawarthill, will the cabinet secretary encourage NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to fund the continuing care beds at St Margaret’s without the need for yet another review? Will she ensure that the chair of the health board meets St Margaret’s because, despite her telling him to do so in March and November of last year, he singularly failed to do so in advance of the most recent members’ business debate on the issue, which was a few weeks ago?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I encourage the health board to do what is right in the circumstances. I hope that all members will welcome the fact that the chairman of the health board has written to the hospice seeking its involvement in the review. All members will accept that the fundamental change in the circumstances, however it has come about, presents an opportunity to look at the situation afresh and an opportunity for the board of St Margaret’s to make its case. I therefore welcome the approach that the health board has made to the hospice. I hope that it responds to that approach and I look forward to receiving and considering the report of the meeting immediately after it has taken place.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The failure of the Blawarthill project should allow for a major rethink. St Margaret’s hospice has an exemplary record of delivering a service of the highest possible quality in its property. There is certainly an expectation that that record should be taken into account before there are any further deliberations on the hospice or changes made.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I thank Gil Paterson for his on-going close interest in the matter. As he knows, the quality of the care that is provided at St Margaret’s has never been in doubt and nor has its on-going contribution as a high-quality hospice. As I said to Jackie Baillie, the changed circumstances give St Margaret’s an opportunity to make the case that it has been making. I expect the health board to listen to that case and I look forward to hearing the outcome of the discussions.

Disabled People’s Organisations (Meetings)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met organisations representing people with disabilities and what issues were discussed. (S3O-13082)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Ministers and officials regularly meet organisations that represent people with disabilities to discuss the development and implementation of a range of policies that impact on the lives of disabled people. The most recent cross-Government meeting with disabled people and their organisations, as well as partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Work and NHS Health Scotland, was the meeting of the independent living core reference group that was held on 18 January in Edinburgh. The agenda included the independent living programme research; voices of disabled people—the challenge of co-production; the independent living work plan priorities of housing, portability of care, advocacy and inclusive communication; and an update on current co-production pilots.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that those groups and the minister recognise the critical role of employment for people with disabilities and particularly the role of sheltered workplaces in providing that employment. In a debate on 7 October, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism agreed that a timetable for each Government department and agency to reserve at least one contract to sheltered workplaces would be created. Will the minister indicate whether the timetable has been published and if not, why not? Can he list which Government contracts, under article 19, have now been reserved to sheltered workplaces?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The plans will be published shortly and certainly before purdah. At that stage, we will give the detailed information that Johann Lamont seeks.

Rail Ticket Pricing (Sutherland)

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive when a rail ticket pricing policy will be introduced in Sutherland that does not charge on the basis of the station from which a journey starts. (S3O-13035)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Under the franchise agreement, ScotRail can increase regulated fares by up to the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. We intend to retain the cap on fares. Unregulated fares are a commercial matter for ScotRail. The next ScotRail franchise is due to be let in 2014. I am sure that, as part of the preparations for that franchise, a comprehensive review of the fares options that are available will be undertaken.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

My constituent Mrs Mackintosh has a Highland rail card, and it costs her £43 per week for a daily journey from Ardgay to Inverness and back. She points out that if she travelled from Helmsdale, which is a greater distance from Inverness, it would cost her the lesser sum of £32 per week for the same journey there and back. That cannot be sensible. Will the minister please help to sort it out?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I accept that there are anomalies in the fare structures, but it is also true that residents of the Highlands benefit from reduced-price rail fares through the 50 per cent discount that the Highland rail card offers. That is an additional discount for Highland residents and it helps to ensure that rural communities remain connected and accessible to the rest of the country. The anomalies are best addressed through the preparations for the next franchise.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Before we come to the next item of business, I think that members will wish to know that I have written to the speaker of the New Zealand Parliament on behalf of the Scottish Parliament to offer our sincere condolences to the people of New Zealand following the horrific earthquake in Christchurch. [Applause.]

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2913)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I support the Presiding Officer’s comments about the earthquake in New Zealand, and I note that a Grampian Fire and Rescue Service team is in New Zealand at present. The Government has also offered the New Zealand health service any support that we can give the people of New Zealand at this extraordinarily difficult time.

My engagements include measures to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Following yesterday’s alarming incident in Auchinleck, does the First Minister agree that, when airgun legislation is devolved to this Parliament, we should use that power to get airguns off our streets?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I do.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister and I agree that we need tough action on airguns, yet the toll of knife crime is even greater, and the power to act already lies with us. In 2008, I asked the First Minister to act, but he would not agree. In 2009, I asked him to act, but he would not agree. In 2010, I brought legislation on knife crime to the chamber, but the First Minister voted it down. Labour’s knife crime petition has collected 30,000 signatures of support and, last weekend, an Edinburgh mother collected 2,000 signatures on her petition in only two days. Why does the First Minister refuse to listen to those people?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

When we discuss the issue of airguns and the hope that the Parliament can act collectively to meet a major danger in Scottish society, we do ourselves credit, because we act as a Parliament. With regard to the range of other justice measures that have been taken by the Government and supported by other parties, should we not start from the assumption that everybody in the Parliament wants to take action to make Scottish society safer?

The measures that we have taken against knife crime do not mean that it is not still a huge problem in Scottish society. It is the most enormous problem, as recent tragic incidents have illustrated. However, some of the actions that have been taken, such as the specific action on knives and the funding of the violence reduction unit, have shown benefits in the recorded crime statistics.

I welcome the fact that violent crime in Scotland is falling, and I hope that Iain Gray will, whatever disagreements he has over the direction of policy, at least acknowledge that there is a determination from people across the Parliament to make Scotland safer.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Of course, and that is why the Labour-led Executive introduced the violence reduction unit in 2006 and that is why we increased the maximum sentence for knife crime. However, to say that the violent crime statistics are less bad is not good enough, and it does not tell the whole story. In Lothian and Borders, for example, the freedom of information response that I have here tells us that knife crime increased by 22 per cent last year.

We have to listen to the people who tell us that they want more action. On the streets of Blantyre, 2,000 people marched to demand action on knife crime. The murder of Reamonn Gormley shocked his community and appalled the country. Justice of the peace Caroline Johnstone even stepped down from the bench to campaign for mandatory jail sentences for knife carrying.

Although the First Minister talks of the action that he takes, he has legislated to send fewer knife criminals to jail, not more. Surely that is wrong.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I do not know whether it is possible for a question not to be worthy of the questioner but, as Iain Gray well knows, serious crime should be met with serious sentences, not short ones. He dismisses the progress that has been made, but I remind the Parliament that there has been a 30 per cent reduction in crimes of handling an offensive weapon since 2006-07, when the Government came to office. That is not a marginal decrease; it is a substantial decrease in that serious crime throughout Scotland.

The range of measures that have been taken—including the work of the violence reduction unit, which this Government has funded, incidentally—is the reason for that substantial reduction in crimes with offensive weapons. However, if I was asked to point to the single most important reason for the reduction, I would say that it is to do with the rate of detection, which is possible because we have 1,000 more police on the streets of Scotland’s communities.

Before Iain Gray casts aspersions on the dedication of any member or party in the Parliament to keeping Scotland safe and to finding solutions so that we can minimise tragedies like those that have occurred in Scotland recently, he should reflect on the fact that, if those police officers had not been patrolling the streets of Scotland, we would not, I believe, have had the lowest level of recorded crime in the country for 32 years or the 30 per cent reduction in crimes of handling an offensive weapon.

Let us accept two points: first, that the Parliament as a whole wants to keep this society safe; secondly, that many of the measures that have been supported by the Parliament and introduced by the Government have led to substantial improvements in the rates of the most serious crimes that affect the Scottish people.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Let us accept that, last year, there were still more than 7,000 crimes of handling an offensive weapon, almost 3,000 people were convicted for handling an offensive weapon and 44 per cent of murders in Scotland used a blade. That may be less, but it is still far too many. Let us also accept that 70 per cent of those who are convicted of knife crime do not receive a jail sentence of any kind.

Knife crime is a serious subject. In Blantyre, Gorebridge, Tranent, Edinburgh and Glasgow, five young lives were cut short in the past couple of weeks alone. There are 30,000 signatures on Labour’s petition. The Greenock Telegraph has collected 15,000 and the Paisley Daily Express has collected 10,000 more. Tracy Smyth collected 2,000 in Edinburgh last weekend. They all want knife criminals to go to jail, and the Labour Party stands with them. Why does the First Minister insist on standing in their way?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have already pointed out to members the substantial reductions in recorded crime. I also point out that, for the first time ever, the fear of crime in Scotland is falling. That speaks volumes for the effectiveness of the justice measures that have been taken.

I pointed out the substantial numbers of additional police officers throughout Scotland, not one of whom would have been delivered if we had had a Labour Administration, because not one was pledged in the Labour manifesto. One police officer is Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, who devised and led the violence reduction unit, which Iain Gray and I agree has been extremely successful. He said:

“I’ve been a cop for 34 years. If I thought locking people up the first time they were carrying a knife and giving them four years in the jail would work, I’d be your man. Jail doesn’t work. We need early intervention, restricting access to alcohol and knives.”

We talk about the booze and blade culture in Scotland. Of course, we all want to act against the blade culture, but only some in the Parliament were prepared to act against the booze culture. [Applause.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2914)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the immediate future, but I met him last Monday in London.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Everyone agrees that delayed discharge from hospital is bad for the patient, the patient’s family and the hospital. The goal is to ensure that no patient who needs continuing care waits longer than six weeks to leave hospital and get that care. I give credit where it is due: in April last year, that goal was reached. However, from January last year to January this year, the number of patients who have waited more than six weeks has not just steadily increased but doubled. Why has the First Minister allowed that to happen?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I welcome Annabel Goldie’s acknowledgement that, although delayed discharges have not been eliminated, they are running at far lower levels than at any time since the Parliament was established. I note that Dr Richard Simpson said on 25 June 2009 that

“The reduction from 2,000 delayed discharges to zero ... is excellent”,—[Official Report, 25 June 2009; c 18935.]

so at least some Labour members are prepared to acknowledge that.

We are working extremely hard to return to zero delayed discharges, because one delayed discharge in Scotland is one too many.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Surely the goal should be that no one waits more than six weeks in any month, any quarter or any year. The problem for the First Minister is that, however the figures are measured—whether they are for less or more than six weeks—more patients are being kept in hospital for longer. Those people do not want or need to be in hospital and would make better progress out of hospital.

Is it not the case that we need to change the structure and cut bureaucracy? We also need the national health service to drive forward a new agenda. Surely the First Minister agrees that that would be made possible by transferring budget from local government to the NHS, so that the NHS is in control. That would ensure that our patients receive the care that they need when they need it. Surely even he can see the sense in that.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

According to the last census, 168 patients were delayed for more than six weeks. That is 168 too many, even if the figure is lower than the many thousands under previous Administrations.

As for the action that we must take, I point Annabel Goldie to two matters. Such issues emphasise the critical importance, even in these times of extraordinary pressure on public spending, of protecting our national health service budget. She and I agree on that and the Administration will continue to protect that budget.

I also point Annabel Goldie to the aim and emphasis in the agreement with local authorities and to the £70 million change fund that will help services for older people to be redesigned. We have allocated £70 million for health service and local authority partners to use in the coming year, along with the voluntary and third sectors, to facilitate service design that ensures that older people remain independent in their own homes and focuses on reducing unnecessary hospital admissions and speeding up discharge after a crisis.

I am sure that Annabel Goldie welcomes that substantial initiative, even in times of extraordinary financial pressure, which will help to address the problem of delayed discharge.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

3. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2915)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

This morning’s audit report on the First Minister’s local police force says that Grampian Police

“has a track record of strong financial management and ... has reported efficiency savings in excess of targets.”

When do ministers plan to publish the costs of their national police force?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Very shortly indeed. Much of the discussion and debate among the chief constables and other interested parties in Scotland has been lively and informative. I think that there is widespread agreement that changes in the structure of the police service offer grounds for hope for substantial efficiencies—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No, there is not.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Apart from Mike Rumbles, there is agreement that changes in the structure of police forces offer substantial efficiencies. Those who advocate such changes have to demonstrate whether that is entirely compatible with the local accountability of our police service.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I think that the figures will not be available until the end of this session of the Parliament. If the First Minister corrects me on that, I would be delighted to be so corrected. Why have ministers decided to ensure that they never have to answer a question on the numbers? They have left it too late to give an answer. Is the First Minister not aware that the last time the Government tried to take calculations to the national policing board, the numbers were thrown out by everyone from chief constables to local government? Does he not recognise that his national police force will cut local policing across Scotland? All bar one of our chief constables are against it. Why does the Government want to spend money that it does not have on a proposal that simply will not cut crime?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Most people are coming to the debate in the hope and expectation that we can find a more efficient way to run our police service, including in times of great financial pressure, for which the Liberal Democrat party must bear some responsibility. We want to find ways to protect front-line policing and to continue the effective patrolling of our streets and communities that has resulted in a substantial reduction in recorded crime over the past four years. Most people are approaching the debate with a view that organisational change may offer such efficiencies to enable us to police Scotland not only democratically and accountably but efficiently. Tavish Scott seems to have made up his mind already that the present structure is the best of all structures for the police in the best of all worlds. He is wrong about that. Whatever their position in the evolving debate, most people who are participating in it are trying to reconcile finding the greater efficiencies that are necessary given the financial pressures on public spending with democratic accountability. If we join the debate on that basis, I am sure that we will come to an effective conclusion. I intend to be answering questions on that effective conclusion for some considerable time to come.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a supplementary from Jamie Stone.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

William Skinner, from the village of Inver in Easter Ross, works in the oil sector. As I speak, he is alone, without communication, trapped in a flat in Tripoli which, as we know, is a very dangerous place to be. His three workmates in the city are trying to get him out so that he can be with them. Will the First Minister use whatever means are at his disposal to get the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—or whoever, the Prime Minister even—to do something so that those people are brought home to safety without any further delay?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I will. I hope to be able to say a bit more on the matter. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom Government decided that the Scottish Government would not be allowed to participate in a COBRA meeting this morning. I regret that decision. We have a substantial interest and duty of care at present to Scottish oil workers who are in Libya. As we have always done in COBRA meetings, on whatever subject, we respect all confidences and would have gone into the meeting in as constructive a way as possible. For completeness, I should add that the Foreign Secretary has agreed to speak to me this afternoon. I will relay to him the views of Jamie Stone and his concern for his constituent, as well as urging further effective action to secure the safety of all Scottish citizens and, indeed, nationals of all countries in Libya.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a further supplementary from Robert Brown.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

We all are anxious to see the success of the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games, which will be a huge event for the city and country. However, is the First Minister aware of reports that 46 milestones that the organising committee set may not have been met? It was reported that the completion date for the accommodation plan has slipped by nine months and that there is still no agreement on the crucial broadcasting deal with the BBC. Can he confirm or deny those worrying reports? Is there slippage and, if so, why? What reassurance can he give the chamber that the Commonwealth games project is on track, as we all want to see it?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I saw the report and Robert Brown’s comments on it. I assure him that the organisation of the Glasgow Commonwealth games—Scotland’s Commonwealth games—in 2014 is on time and on budget and is proceeding according to plan. The report, which I happened to read, was somewhat short on substantive detail. The fact that it cited as one of its major concerns the Christmas party of the Commonwealth games staff suggested that it was lacking in some of the substantive issues that I would have expected such an investigative report to highlight. I am happy to reassure the member that Glasgow’s Commonwealth games are on time, on budget and well organised. With great co-operation between the Government and Glasgow City Council, they will be an enormous success for Glasgow and for Scotland.

Universities (Support)

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support universities. (S3F-2918)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government has a proud record of achievement in higher education. Our financial commitments to universities next year will exceed £1.1 billion. That means that we will have invested record amounts in further and higher education—more than £7 billion over this session. Despite the cuts that Westminster has imposed on the Scottish Government budget, we have secured agreement with the sector that will see the same number of university places available next year as there are this year. That is a substantial achievement and a tribute to both the universities and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister will be aware of proposals by the University of Glasgow to cut many courses, including foreign languages, adult learning courses and nursing. He will also be aware of the enormous opposition to those cuts from students and academics alike and from Mario Conti, the Archbishop of Glasgow, who has expressed concern that education could end up being confined to

“some particular and narrow end”.

Does the First Minister agree that universities have a duty to be all-inclusive and that the proposals to which I have referred would be detrimental not only to the University of Glasgow but to Scotland as a whole?