Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 16 November 2011
16 Nov 2011 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Regeneration Strategy
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing the debate to Parliament this afternoon, but I do so with a sense of déjà vu. Last week, Patricia Ferguson and I led from these seats on a debate that centred on a fairly anodyne, if not utterly mundane, motion on the importance of architecture in relation to matters such as the creation, development and sustainability of local communities. It turned out to be an enjoyable and informative debate and I hope that this afternoon’s debate around an equally bland, if not insipid, motion is as good.
My sense of déjà vu is not, however, restricted to recollections of last week’s discussion, but comes from a debate that was held in the previous session on regeneration. In that debate, I noted that the Government motion contained predictable platitudes, but that
“the issue under discussion is hugely important and cannot be hidden, even under the banality of the motion.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2010; c 24170.]
So, here we are again, debating a hugely significant issue around a motion that barely nods in the direction of just how vital regeneration is to Scotland, to its current and future economic prospects and to the wellbeing of our communities. As I said in the previous debate:
“I am not saying that the Government has got it wrong on ... regeneration”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2010; c 24171.]
Similarly, I am not saying that the Government has nothing to defend in that regard, and we really could have had a more substantive motion on what the Government believes has to be done.
It would also have been good to see in the motion or have heard in Mr Neil’s speech a sense of humility or even an apology, with the cabinet secretary recognising that he was overseeing a reduction in regeneration funding for vital projects in the period ahead. For example, why is there no recognition that the ring-fenced budget for all URCs other than Clyde Gateway now only goes up to 2012-13 and that after that Riverside Inverclyde, Irvine Bay Regeneration Company and Clydebank Re-built will all have to bid for funding as part of the wider regeneration strategy, and that they no longer have guaranteed funding beyond 2012-13, even though they were originally guaranteed 10 years of funding?
I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing the debate to Parliament this afternoon, but I do so with a sense of déjà vu. Last week, Patricia Ferguson and I led from these seats on a debate that centred on a fairly anodyne, if not utterly mundane, motion on the importance of architecture in relation to matters such as the creation, development and sustainability of local communities. It turned out to be an enjoyable and informative debate and I hope that this afternoon’s debate around an equally bland, if not insipid, motion is as good.
My sense of déjà vu is not, however, restricted to recollections of last week’s discussion, but comes from a debate that was held in the previous session on regeneration. In that debate, I noted that the Government motion contained predictable platitudes, but that
“the issue under discussion is hugely important and cannot be hidden, even under the banality of the motion.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2010; c 24170.]
So, here we are again, debating a hugely significant issue around a motion that barely nods in the direction of just how vital regeneration is to Scotland, to its current and future economic prospects and to the wellbeing of our communities. As I said in the previous debate:
“I am not saying that the Government has got it wrong on ... regeneration”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2010; c 24171.]
Similarly, I am not saying that the Government has nothing to defend in that regard, and we really could have had a more substantive motion on what the Government believes has to be done.
It would also have been good to see in the motion or have heard in Mr Neil’s speech a sense of humility or even an apology, with the cabinet secretary recognising that he was overseeing a reduction in regeneration funding for vital projects in the period ahead. For example, why is there no recognition that the ring-fenced budget for all URCs other than Clyde Gateway now only goes up to 2012-13 and that after that Riverside Inverclyde, Irvine Bay Regeneration Company and Clydebank Re-built will all have to bid for funding as part of the wider regeneration strategy, and that they no longer have guaranteed funding beyond 2012-13, even though they were originally guaranteed 10 years of funding?
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01336, in the name of Alex Neil, on the regeneration strategy.I call on Alex Neil to speak to and move th...
The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment (Alex Neil)
SNP
Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I will try to use it as productively as possible, as always.Regeneration of Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas—
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Excuse me, minister, could you sit down for a moment?The minister’s microphone is not on. Will broadcasting please put it on? Perhaps the minister could move...
Alex Neil
SNP
It is on now.
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Indeed it is.I again call on Alex Neil to speak to and move the motion. You still have 14 minutes, but it is now not such a generous 14 minutes.
Alex Neil
SNP
I will add injury time.Regeneration of Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas and strengthening of our communities are key priorities for the Scottish Governmen...
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Lab
I agree with the minister that we need to take a community-based bottom-up approach as far as that is possible. However, in the case of regeneration projects...
Alex Neil
SNP
As the member will know, the Scottish Government has given priority to Ravenscraig; indeed, it is the subject of one of our TIF pilot projects. Along with No...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
I now call Michael McMahon to speak to and move motion S4M-01336.1. Mr McMahon, you have a generous 10 minutes.14:52
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Lab
Thank you, Presiding Officer.I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing the debate to Parliament this afternoon, but I do so with a sense of déjà vu. Last we...
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
I note the point that Michael McMahon is making, but I wonder whether anyone is guaranteed funding at this time. Surely, when the budget has been cut so seve...
Michael McMahon
Lab
John Mason has to identify his priorities. On an issue as important as regeneration, we can say that some budget lines have to be protected more than others....
Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
Michael McMahon
Lab
I would like to make some progress.With the budgets of some regeneration programmes being cut in half, we cannot allow the Scottish National Party Government...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
I now call Alex Johnstone to speak to and move amendment S4M-01336.2. Mr Johnstone, you have a generous six minutes.15:01
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con)
Con
It is always nice to be given a generous time limit. Generally, it means that I will have a wander around the subject and end up saying less than I would oth...
Kevin Stewart
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Alex Johnstone
Con
Ah, go on. Why not?
Kevin Stewart
SNP
I thank Mr Johnstone for giving way. Without pointing the finger of blame at anyone, I would say that it is at times such as this when we have to be a little...
Alex Johnstone
Con
There are many examples of success and they were not all achieved under this Government. In Scotland’s history, regeneration has been an on-going theme for m...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
Will the member give way?
Alex Johnstone
Con
Not at the moment—I want to develop my argument.In the past, I have criticised our tendency to be insular with regard to the communities that we represent, a...
Duncan McNeil
Lab
I was wondering how long it would take the member to tell us to get on our bikes. Does the member accept that regeneration is not just about economic growth,...
Alex Johnstone
Con
It is clear that, when they look back over history and at the trends that the member has highlighted, both the Conservative and Labour Parties will find it d...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
We move to the open debate. I can offer members up to seven minutes for speeches. 15:10
Adam Ingram (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
SNP
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I will focus my remarks on the need to regenerate the former coalfield communities in my constituen...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
I am also pleased to be able to take part in the debate and I welcome the minister’s comments about focusing on the hard-pressed communities that are less re...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
Mr McNeil, will you begin to wind up, please?
Duncan McNeil
Lab
Right. Sorry, Presiding Officer.The urban regeneration company is but one part of our wider manifesto. We have great ambition to see the renewables industry ...
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
SNP
I thank the cabinet secretary for holding this debate.As a previous MSP for the Glasgow region and as the current MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, I, like my colleagu...