Hansard

One of my colleagues just said “Follow that”, but I do not think that I will. I will try to do what I am good at myself, and I may mention the town of Paisley at one point.

I welcome the committee’s report and all the hard work that the committee obviously did during the inquiry. Remembering my time dealing with matters such as regeneration, I think that Stewart Stevenson is correct when he says that when we use words like regeneration we are taking power away from the very people who want to get the job done. For them, it is just a case of rolling up the sleeves and doing the hard work, so Stewart Stevenson made a valid point in that regard.

When I was involved as a councillor with Renfrewshire Council, we noted that, when we had engagement with local groups in terms of the community planning partnership programme, we heard all their good ideas and what they wanted. I found that extremely useful in giving me a reason for what we wanted to provide and do.

One of the first things that we did in Renfrewshire Council was to ensure that as an administration we created a local area committee structure in which community groups could have a say and vote on decisions about what we did with the Paisley common good fund and other funds that were available to the groups. That was done instead of what had happened in the past, which was that in a darkened council room councillors decided what they were going to do with the money. The new system was more open and a better way forward. I found it a lot better as well because it meant that, as the convener of the group concerned, I could ensure that the public were getting what they wanted and that things were successful.

Among the things that we did was get an investment of £220,000 from Tennis Scotland for tennis courts in the south end of Paisley. People thought that I was daft and that I would not get the money, but I got it because we thought big and decided to get it for that small area of Paisley. We also looked at getting other facilities, including an outdoor gym. I went past it the other day, and it is extremely successful. The idea was to ensure that we had intergenerational movement there so that older people would not be scared to sit there or walk around the park because of younger people—the idea was to have everybody there together. That facility has worked, and it was one of the ideas that came from the public to the local authority, which then got on with it.

One issue that I constantly heard about during my time as a councillor on the scrutiny board that looked at various funding streams for projects was the on-going issue of building capacity for larger projects in areas and constituencies like mine. The committee’s report also referred to that idea: there are a lot of good smaller projects going on, but the larger, life-changing type of project is more difficult as people shy away from them because they do not believe that they have the capacity to push them forward. I do not think that that is the case. I think that it is a case of thinking positively and differently to ensure that we give the people in local groups the opportunity to use to good effect every bit of passion that they have for their town or local area.

For example, the Paisley Development Trust came to me because it wanted to use one of the older buildings in the area that was empty. At that time, the Russell Institute building was being left empty by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, so I said that we should go for that one. Two years later, following work with the local authority and other partners, including the Scottish Government, that building is going to be back in use again in the town. That achievement came from the bottom, because the group involved wanted to do something and engaged with local politicians of various party colours, who worked together and managed to deliver something. That just shows the difference that we can make when we all focus and start to work together.

During its investigation, the committee obviously went to the centre of the universe—Paisley. While it was there, it spoke to community activists from Ferguslie Park and it went to the home of the famous Paisley St Mirren. St Mirren is a perfect example of a community anchor organisation. The report mentions that as well. The work that it has done over the years, which it mentioned to the committee, includes its work with the local authority and various local businesses to deliver the street stuff programme, which I have mentioned before. It goes out into areas where there have been problems with young people and engages with them. As well as street football, there is a youth bus and a gym bus. That has brought down youth disorder in some areas by 25 per cent.

The committee mentions in its report—on page 66—that when it went to St Mirren it heard that there is an open door policy. Lots of football clubs talk about being community clubs, but St Mirren actually opens the doors to the public because it knows that that is the future. It is a community asset. The only problem with the things that it is doing is that there is a basket of funding measures and the funding is provided on a yearly basis.

Mark McDonald was right to say that, although some people think that regeneration is something that the council or the Government does, it is bigger than that. St Mirren’s chairman Stewart Gilmour said jokingly to the chief executive of Renfrewshire Council, “Why don’t you second some of your social workers to St Mirren and I’ll help you with some of the problems you have?” That might sound a silly idea initially, but it is valid because the other projects that the club has done have credibility and because the club is not looked upon by members of the public as the enemy so it can engage with them. The same people are doing the job but, instead of coming in as “the council” to discuss things from an enforcement point of view, they are there as people who are there to help others and they have credibility in that engagement.

I was on Mr McNeil’s Health and Sport Committee for all of two meetings, and the committee was talking about sport hubs. It talked about the European model where all the clubs play multiple sports and everybody goes into their professional club’s area, which makes such a difference to places. I had discussions with our local hockey team Kelburne hockey club, St Mirren Football Club, Renfrewshire Council, Renfrewshire Leisure Trust, the University of the West of Scotland, West College Scotland, Engage Renfrewshire—the third sector interface—and Scottish Government ministers, and we talked about how we could take that idea and make it happen in Paisley.

In an area such as Ferguslie, where St Mirren park is, we are in an area of multiple deprivation. As Mr Stevenson said, someone who is born in Ferguslie does not grow up believing that they live in an area of multiple deprivation; they live in Ferguslie and they just want to get on with their life. The idea that we had was to eventually get to a stage where they could get access to education. It is not about elite football stars; it is about using capital spend and regeneration and trying to make a difference in areas such as Ferguslie Park. We are working on that project now. All that we are short of is money, but we are looking for a four or five-year programme with the national lottery. That can make a difference in a place such as Ferguslie Park.

As Mr Stevenson rightly said, and as the report says, it is a question of galvanising support from local communities, giving them what they want and ensuring that we make a difference in their lives.