Chamber
Plenary, 05 Apr 2001
05 Apr 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Structural Funds
As other members have dealt with the broad sweep of structural funds, I will be marginally parochial about the issue and talk about the Clyde urban waterfront regeneration zone, which I suspect will be unfamiliar to most members but which has been included in the URBAN II programme. That programme will focus on two areas—Port Glasgow and Clydebank south—and involves £8 million of ERDF investment that will run to the end of 2006. I am absolutely delighted that those areas have been chosen. The funding will be matched from domestic sources, which will give an overall total of £16 million.
However, I have stumbled across a little difficulty. According the EC guidelines of 28 April 2000, the minimum number of people for an URBAN II project is 20,000, although exceptions can be made for populations of 10,000. Clydebank south fits neatly into that special 10,000 limit category. However, the application is a joint submission for both Clydebank south and Port Glasgow, and we must add the populations of the two areas together to get a total for the project.
The guidelines make it clear that the EC lays down no upper limit on the size of the population in a single project to be funded by URBAN II; however, I understand that the United Kingdom Government arranges everything with the Commission. The Scottish Parliament information centre's note states:
"It is DTI that negotiates with the Commission over the amount of funding and the concomitant conditions for the UK."
I believe—although I am almost praying to be corrected by the minister—that the Department of Trade and Industry has set an upper population limit for an URBAN II project at 24,000 people. That is a serious proposition. Adding Port Glasgow's 18,000 people to Clydebank south's 10,000 people produces a total of 28,000 people. As the Clyde urban waterfront regeneration zone URBAN II project has been approved in principle as a single project and as detailed submissions are being completed for a deadline of the end of April, which I gather has already slipped from an original deadline in November, I sincerely hope that that limit of 24,000 people is not set in stone.
The EC indicates nine URBAN II areas in the UK. I cannot believe that all those areas will reach the UK's arbitrary maximum population total of 24,000; there should be some flexibility within the gross UK population total and the gross funding allowed by the Commission.
I pose the minister the following questions. Will he confirm or deny that the UK Government has imposed a 24,000 population maximum for each URBAN II project in the UK, and that that limit will apply in the west of Scotland? If that maximum figure is less than the joint population totals for Port Glasgow and Clydebank south, will he acknowledge that there is no upper limit in the Commission's URBAN II guidelines? Will he negotiate with the UK Government and the Commission to ensure flexibility in the application for Port Glasgow and Clydebank south?
Does the minister agree that, whatever happens, the promise of URBAN II for all the people of Port Glasgow and Clydebank south—which has already been given—must not founder, even in part, on the rock of administrative rigidity or because we are £1 billion short of previous funding in the UK? Each of those places has an identifiable community and should be treated as such: no ward or streets should be pulled from them to meet criteria that have been laid down by the UK Government, although the Commission has set no upper population limit.
However, I have stumbled across a little difficulty. According the EC guidelines of 28 April 2000, the minimum number of people for an URBAN II project is 20,000, although exceptions can be made for populations of 10,000. Clydebank south fits neatly into that special 10,000 limit category. However, the application is a joint submission for both Clydebank south and Port Glasgow, and we must add the populations of the two areas together to get a total for the project.
The guidelines make it clear that the EC lays down no upper limit on the size of the population in a single project to be funded by URBAN II; however, I understand that the United Kingdom Government arranges everything with the Commission. The Scottish Parliament information centre's note states:
"It is DTI that negotiates with the Commission over the amount of funding and the concomitant conditions for the UK."
I believe—although I am almost praying to be corrected by the minister—that the Department of Trade and Industry has set an upper population limit for an URBAN II project at 24,000 people. That is a serious proposition. Adding Port Glasgow's 18,000 people to Clydebank south's 10,000 people produces a total of 28,000 people. As the Clyde urban waterfront regeneration zone URBAN II project has been approved in principle as a single project and as detailed submissions are being completed for a deadline of the end of April, which I gather has already slipped from an original deadline in November, I sincerely hope that that limit of 24,000 people is not set in stone.
The EC indicates nine URBAN II areas in the UK. I cannot believe that all those areas will reach the UK's arbitrary maximum population total of 24,000; there should be some flexibility within the gross UK population total and the gross funding allowed by the Commission.
I pose the minister the following questions. Will he confirm or deny that the UK Government has imposed a 24,000 population maximum for each URBAN II project in the UK, and that that limit will apply in the west of Scotland? If that maximum figure is less than the joint population totals for Port Glasgow and Clydebank south, will he acknowledge that there is no upper limit in the Commission's URBAN II guidelines? Will he negotiate with the UK Government and the Commission to ensure flexibility in the application for Port Glasgow and Clydebank south?
Does the minister agree that, whatever happens, the promise of URBAN II for all the people of Port Glasgow and Clydebank south—which has already been given—must not founder, even in part, on the rock of administrative rigidity or because we are £1 billion short of previous funding in the UK? Each of those places has an identifiable community and should be treated as such: no ward or streets should be pulled from them to meet criteria that have been laid down by the UK Government, although the Commission has set no upper population limit.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1825, in the name of Angus MacKay, on structural funds, and one amendment to that motion.
The Minister for Finance and Local Government (Angus MacKay):
Lab
The most recent parliamentary debate on structural funds took place in October 1999, when we were near the beginning of the process of preparing the programm...
Mrs Margaret Ewing (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
I am listening with great care to the minister's concept of funds being used to tackle poverty and influence social inclusion. Is he satisfied that within th...
Angus MacKay:
Lab
Yes, I am. As we move into the new round of awards, we are actively working with the voluntary sector on transitional arrangements, to ensure that the volunt...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The Executive has announced an objective 2 support package of £6.5 million for the south of Scotland—I take it that that is what the minister has just announ...
Angus MacKay:
Lab
That is correct. I could say more, but that answer is succinct.We look forward to announcing further approved projects for the west and east of Scotland obje...
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP) rose—
SNP
Angus MacKay:
Lab
Against my better judgment, I will give way to Alex Neil.
Alex Neil:
SNP
I would like to get the picture straight. Scotland is not becoming relatively more prosperous; other areas are becoming relatively poorer, especially as the ...
Angus MacKay:
Lab
Alex Neil is wrong. Scotland is prospering and becoming a wealthier nation. That challenges us to find new ways forward. The accession states' economies have...
Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
The minister has not mentioned the financial instrument for fisheries guidance. Last year, the relevant documents were sent out late, no applications were re...
Angus MacKay:
Lab
I take seriously the point that Mr Davidson makes and I will pursue it to try to ensure that the funds are administered timeously. If Mr Davidson had interve...
Mr Davidson:
Con
Our record is very good.
Angus MacKay:
Lab
As Mr Davidson, from a sedentary position, has given me the opportunity, I will deal with that interesting policy position. Would Mr Davidson care to acknowl...
Mr Davidson rose—
Con
Angus MacKay:
Lab
I will give Mr Davidson the opportunity to intervene when I have finished covering Conservative policy. CAFE says that it wants Britain's relationship with E...
Mr Davidson:
Con
I did not realise that the minister read the cultural pages about café society in London. He spoke earlier about federal Europe. The Conservatives have made ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
That is an interesting byway, but we are beginning to stray somewhat from the motion.
Angus MacKay:
Lab
Before the debate, several members told me of their concerns about my capacity to talk about structural funds for 20 minutes and their capacity to sustain th...
Mr Davidson rose—
Con
Angus MacKay:
Lab
I will not yield to the temptation to give way further on the Conservatives' European policy.I do not have much time left, so I will say that I think that it...
Mr Kenneth Gibson (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
Perhaps, in response to CAFE, Mr Davidson could form TEA—Tories encouraging assimilation.The SNP is pleased to state that we support the Scottish Executive's...
Angus MacKay:
Lab
I am more than happy to provide an intervention for Mr Gibson. I have in front of me an excerpt from the West Highland Free Press of, I think, 8 April 1999. ...
Mr Gibson:
SNP
I felt as if I was dying of old age listening to that intervention. I make the point that half a loaf is better than no bread.Why did the Highlands and Islan...
Mr Davidson:
Con
Would Mr Gibson like to repeat those figures so that Labour and Liberal members understand what a good job we did for Scotland?
Mr Gibson:
SNP
Perhaps the Conservatives did not do as good a job as they could have done, but they certainly did a better job than new Labour. New Labour has cost the coun...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr Gibson:
SNP
I would like to, but I am only two thirds of the way through my speech and I am down to my last four minutes. I am sorry, but Mr MacKay's rambling interventi...
Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
We are obviously into panel games. To the SNP I offer NUTS: nationalists under threat in Scotland.The minister will not be surprised that I cannot agree with...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
Does David Davidson recognise that, as Angus MacKay and Kenneth Gibson said, the allocation of structural funds is largely to areas that are underperforming ...