Plenary, 30 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, October 30, 2003

Official Report 707KB pdf

---

“Building Better Cities”

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-526, in the name of Andy Kerr, on "Building Better Cities: Delivering Growth and Opportunities", and on three amendments to the motion.

Scotland's future is bound up with the future of its cities. They are drivers of growth and dynamism for all of Scotland. The people of Scotland deserve to enjoy a world-class urban environment. We can be proud that we have a rich inheritance of historical experience and present-day expertise on which to build.

Many of us will share the unique problems that our cities face, but, equally, we have a common interest in finding collaborative solutions that can be sustained in the interests of the whole of Scotland—city, town, highland and island. It would be wrong to conceive of cities as sharp-edged, single units that are cut off from the rest of the country and from one another. Each city is the sum of a complex set of economic, social and cultural transactions in which we all take part, wherever we live or work.

"Building Better Cities: Delivering Growth and Opportunities" is a catalyst for change, but it is also a recognition of the need for coherence in the approach to our cities and in the policies that we design around them. The approach is inclusive and draws on not only the resources of local and central Government, but the experiences of those who live in our cities so that regeneration is sustainable and not driven from the outside or from above. "Building Better Cities" is about a collaborative framework to address the distinctive challenges and opportunities that our cities face, but it is also the beginning of a change process in how we develop our urban policy. It is rooted firmly in the evidence that was set out in the "Review of Scotland's Cities", but that was never an end in itself.

"Building Better Cities" has been a catalyst for substantive and innovative action on the part of the six cities and their community planning partners. The past months have seen the development and approval of six strategic city-region agreements—the city visions—which are clear and constructive statements by each city of its strategic vision for the next 10 years. The city visions have been developed in close collaboration with community planning partners and endorsed by communities and stakeholders such as councils in each city region and ministers.

Does the minister agree that when cities engage in planning, it is important that they take into consideration areas that they border, such as my constituency of Midlothian, which borders and has a close economic relationship with Edinburgh?

When we discussed these matters with cities, we made it clear that we wanted to ensure that they were working in collaboration with their neighbours and, in that respect, we were pushing an open door. I have not had representations to the contrary about the involvement of authorities that neighbour cities in the development of city regions.

We have a set of genuinely innovative and exciting proposals for each of our cities, which are now being implemented. The visions reflect the diversity of our cities and address the full sweep of social, economic and cultural needs. They will make a real difference to quality of life for people in and around our cities.

In Glasgow the first aim of the city vision, "Metropolitan Glasgow", is to support major regeneration projects, such as for the Clyde, the Clyde gateway project in the east end and the millennium canal. The largest project is a cross-cutting move to address key skills gaps by expanding the schools vocational training programme to all eight local authorities, investing £9 million to provide up to 4,000 training places for potential early school leavers, supporting social cohesion and addressing skill shortages across the city region. I welcome warmly the depth of collaboration that there has been with Glasgow and its partners in developing the vision.

An excellent example of cities meeting need far beyond their boundaries is the Clyde tunnel. I ask the minister to reflect on the fact that the Executive is currently funding the 1,000m of the Clyde tunnel to the same level as 1,000m of a rural road with light traffic. I urge the minister to meet representatives of Glasgow City Council and to talk to the Minister for Transport about addressing the important need for improvement to the Clyde tunnel so that the burden does not fall unfairly on the citizens of Glasgow.

I am well aware of how local government resource calculations work. Nicol Stephen is dealing with the issue that the member raised and I will liaise with her about that. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to meet the leadership of Glasgow City Council, as I do frequently.

We are at a staging point in relation to our cities. In Edinburgh, the city vision focuses on managing growth, promoting affordable accommodation—

Will the minister take an intervention?

Yes, if it is on Glasgow.

Glasgow has had higher than average economic growth in recent years. Does the minister accept that one of the city's challenges is the fact that 30 per cent of its working-age population is not in work and often lacks the skills that are needed to access the jobs that are being created, many of which go to those who live outside the city boundaries? If the problem is not tackled, we will have labour shortages, which will threaten continued economic growth, and we will not be able to tackle the social deprivation that mars Glasgow. How will the minister tackle the skills gap in Glasgow, not just among young people but across the age groups?

I agree with that view, which was reflected by the Glasgow local economic forum. That view confirms Glasgow's above-average gross domestic product and employment growth and its healthy economic figures. I accept whole-heartedly the member's point that Glaswegians sometimes do not benefit directly from that growth. Therefore, as part of the cities review process, there has been a £9 million project to develop the skills agenda within Glasgow. The Executive acknowledges fully the need to tackle that issue, which is part of the city vision. We seek to support the city by ensuring that we match the population to the skills that will be needed for the major regeneration projects that are going on. We want not only Glaswegians but their partners to benefit from that—the leader of Glasgow City Council has sought that through the wider regional partnership.

Will the minister take an intervention before he leaves Glasgow?

I need to leave Glasgow soon.

I know that the minister used to have affection for Glasgow. Will he comment on the report by independent consultants, which stated that the Glasgow Alliance had

"underperformed, failed in its main objectives and did not give value for money",

or on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's remark that there is

"sometimes illogical competition between enterprise companies"?

Is there not a need to get more co-ordinated, joined-up working in Glasgow instead of having so many agencies?

I agree with that point. The Executive is working hard with its partners in Glasgow. The Rocket Science report made that point but, to be fair, the member has selected his quotations. Although there are things that we need to learn from the consultants' report about Glasgow, they are predicting that, over the next 10 years, average growth in the city will outstrip growth in the rest of Scotland, that it will gain 11,000 new jobs and that its working population will grow. Good things are happening in and around Glasgow, as is the case with many of our cities.

In Edinburgh, our capital city, the focus is on managing growth, promoting affordable accommodation for key workers, improving public transport and supporting the Executive's commitment to the city tramway. Edinburgh's city vision promotes the city as a world-class centre for culture and will enhance the public realm. Edinburgh has many things going for it, further work on which we seek to support through the cities review project.

In Stirling, the growth fund will support the Stirling sustainability centre, an eco-friendly business space, good practice in sustainable living and the Executive's commitment to the green jobs strategy.

Dundee is a city in transformation. Its city vision centres on the need to attract fresh talent and new investment in a dynamic and regenerating local economy. The city growth fund is reconnecting the city with its waterfront. As all members will acknowledge, Dundee has one of the best estuary settings in Europe. When I visited Dundee, I saw the incredible potential there. I am very pleased that Dundee City Council has invited the architect Frank Gehry, who is famous for the Guggenheim Museum and the Dundee Maggie's Centre, to be involved in some of the work on the waterfront.

Recently I also visited Aberdeen, which is building its vision of an energy city by diversifying—moving from oil and gas into renewable energy sources—establishing a seedcorn energy fund and developing a new energy futures centre as a key driver for growth. The city vision for Aberdeen incorporates an innovative approach to the cultural quarter and to sports and city heritage work.

I welcome the review, but does the minister acknowledge that more people live in Scotland's towns, which have populations of between 2,000 and 20,000, than live in its cities? Many of the problems and issues that the review addresses in relation to Scotland's cities could also be addressed in relation to Scotland's market towns, of which there are five in my constituency. Does the minister see the review as a model for progressing that?

Be careful with your time, minister.

I am conscious of that. We want to ensure that the process, which is bedding down extremely well, works and we will assess that. The review provides a model for future practice. I agree whole-heartedly with the member's point about the smaller towns, villages and market towns throughout Scotland.

Inverness is a city with strong cultural values, a thriving economy and imaginative plans for the historic riverside, the castle, a recycling innovation zone and the Merkinch social inclusion partnership.

Will the minister give way?

I will not; the Presiding Officer has given me clear advice on that.

There is a powerful unifying theme of collaboration and partnership working. The city visions imply a forward-looking perspective that is about connecting our cities to one another and to the wider regions. We must lift our sights above the immediate concerns and extend them across different sectors and activities and beyond local boundaries for the benefit of cities' communities. We want to ensure that the city visions have those tangible outcomes, which we will measure in the future.

Members have drawn my attention to community planning and to ensuring that that process works well in the city regions. There are many issues to be addressed and that is why planning across all sectors is critical. Issues such as economic development, land-use planning, health care, protection of biodiversity and many others span entire regions and are significant for all of Scotland. We are convinced that the Executive can play a key role in supporting the spark and impetus coming from the cities and how they see their communities developing.

We intend to use mechanisms such as urban regeneration companies and other new delivery vehicles, such as business improvement districts. Among the pathfinder projects, Stirling Council is considering the advantages of using an urban regeneration company for the Raploch regeneration project. That will cut across many of the important issues for the city.

I have seen much good work being done in our cities. The Executive is investing in addressing some of the cultural, transport and infrastructure issues, such as supporting the rail links between Edinburgh and Glasgow, the reopening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, the completion of the motorway network, and the opening of the Aberdeen peripheral route. Many of the Executive's innovative projects sit well with the regeneration of our cities and with the city vision statements.

We are talking not just about sustaining the momentum that has been built up by the cities so far, although we must acknowledge that, but about building on that beginning and taking our cities further. We are demonstrating vision, commitment and ambition. The vision is about Aberdeen being a world energy city, Dundee having the best waterfront in Europe, Edinburgh growing as an enterprise centre and capital city, Glasgow being a cohesive and modern merchant city, Inverness thriving as the capital of the Highlands, and Stirling being a healthy city with a revitalised Raploch estate.

That is our vision. Cities matter and people matter. There is much to celebrate about our cities, but planning and delivering better cities is imperative and our future well-being rests on that.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the significant progress made by local authorities and their community planning partners in taking forward the recommendations set out in Building Better Cities: Delivering Growth and Opportunities since its publication in January 2003 and the collaborative process led by the community planning partnerships in each city region to develop a 10-year City-Vision; welcomes the strategic plans set out in the six City-Visions, including the projects to be funded by the Cities Growth Fund, and endorses the Scottish Executive's long-term commitment to the regeneration of Scotland's cities.

At the risk of disconcerting the Minister for Finance and Public Services, I begin by saying that there is some common ground between us. There is no doubt that some of the initiatives that the minister mentioned in his speech are welcomed by all. The minister mentioned the Maggie's Centre in Dundee; I hope that a Maggie's Centre will soon be established in Inverness, although most of the money for that is coming not from the Executive, but from charitable effort.

We welcome many of those initiatives, unlike the Conservatives who seem to oppose them all. It is right to start by saying that. The purpose of debating the principles involved is to point to what I regard as valid criticisms of, and flaws in, the analysis and approach that have been adopted. I suggest that those flaws should be considered so that we can achieve common aims.

There is no doubt that Scotland's cities are drivers of economic growth. Equally, there is no doubt that economic growth is a top priority for us as it is for the Executive, even if we have different ideological views about the context in which that can best be achieved. We want to be ruthlessly constructive.

I am sure that the minister and other members will be aware that there has been valid academic criticism. Ivan Turok from the department of urban studies at the University of Glasgow said that the review was "a modest response" to the range and intensity of the challenges facing the cities.

Some of those challenges have been mentioned. Depopulation is a serious problem for most if not all of the cities. Shona Robison mentioned Dundee to me in that context, and I believe that Nicola Sturgeon and members from all parties have that concern. That is not something that a cities policy can necessarily solve, but solving it is a key to our future—a sine qua non of economic success.

Professor Michael Pacione from the department of geography at the University of Strathclyde said:

"The Cities Review provides a succinct analysis of the current health of Scotland's cities but neglects the opportunity to address important issues such as those relating to city boundaries and local retention of business rates."

Members mentioned that in the debate on the same topic that took place in January 2003.

Professor Glen Bramley pointed to finance being a key issue and said that although the £90 million was welcome, it was not sufficient to address some of the more serious problems.

Let me mention a second flaw in the approach—as my audience departs from the public gallery. There is a strong argument that the best way in which to approach the intellectual and policy issues of improving our economy is to do so not solely on a geographical basis, but also on a sectoral basis. To do so on a geographical basis rather suggests that Government knows better than business what the remedies and solutions are. If we look at each sector of the Scottish economy—whether it is financial services, manufacturing, various types of modern technology, such as biotechnology, which the minister mentioned, or traditional industries, such as whisky—ask what the problems are and then try to address them, we can more readily achieve the aims that we all share.

It is ironic that it was the second First Minister who, when he wore the hat of Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, took the initiative of the pathfinders document, which set out on exactly that course of looking at each industry to find out how it could achieve more—although of course there are terrific successes. Sadly, Mr McLeish has departed. We were pleased to hear from him yesterday in another place, and were reminded of the past. It is unfortunate that the approach that he advocated, and which we supported, seems to have been abandoned somewhere along the line.

Does not Mr Ewing recognise that that strategy is being carried through in "A Smart, Successful Scotland" and through the cluster approach of Scottish Enterprise—the budget of which Mr Ewing's party wishes to slash?

I find it impossible to agree with any of the assertions contained in that intervention. Since the point has not been grasped, perhaps I can restate it in a simpler way so that it is easy for anyone to understand. Let us take the whisky industry as an object lesson. It faces the problem of the highest taxation in the world for Scotland's most famous Scottish product. Why is that so? I do not hear answers coming from the finance team opposite or from anyone else, for that matter, on the unionist benches.

Does the member agree with the recent study issued by the Executive, which showed that, in terms of taxation on business, Scotland—and, indeed, the UK—sits very well in comparison with most of our major competitors, and is at the lower end of the middle grouping of economies in terms of overall taxation?

Obviously I do not agree, but that was a particularly inapposite intervention, because I was talking about tax on whisky, which is excise duty. The Executive's report did not include any study of excise duty. It ignored it. Neither did the report include—and the minister raised this, so it is an open door—any reference to the tax on our oil, which is the highest or second highest in the world.

I return to Mr Purvis's point, which I was trying to address before I was interrupted by the minister. On the whisky industry, we would be looking at the water framework directive, at labelling, and at all the regulations that are being foisted on the industry, and we would try to lift them, so that the industry could achieve more success. However, that has not happened.

You have one minute.

Hooray!

I see that they are enjoying my speech. Obviously it is stimulating some mental activity on the opposing benches, which is always welcome, if surprising.

As an émigré from Glasgow, it seems to me that much of what we can do is not linked to Government or policy. Glasgow has some of the friendliest people that could be imagined—myself included, or not—and if that friendliness could be bottled, it would be more expensive than even the most expensive bottle of whisky.

It is not all about money. Inverness sought to become Europe's capital of culture. If Scotland were an independent country, Inverness would have been the European capital of culture. Directly because we are not, that honour goes to Liverpool. Next year, it goes to Cork and the year after that it goes to Luxembourg. Because of our subservient status, we lose the huge benefits that I am sure everyone recognises would have come from that honour.

I move amendment S2M-526.2, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"notes the concerns of many that the publication of the Review of Scotland's Cities was a modest response to the challenges facing Scottish cities and that the review neglects the opportunity to address properly important issues of transport infrastructure and finance."

I have absolutely no reason to doubt the sincerity of the minister, the deputy minister or the officials—indeed, the whole team—who put forward the proposals in the cities review and the strategic vision that we are debating today. Indeed, I do not argue with their goal of a successful Scottish economy and I do not deny the fact that our cities are central to achieving that. In fact, so fragile is the Scottish economy that, were it not for the economic engine that is known as Edinburgh, we could expect to see Scotland in a real recession and not, as yesterday's gross domestic product figures showed, just flirting with recession.

The cities are vital—on that much, we on the Conservative benches agree with the Executive, unlike the nationalists. I thought for a moment that I was at the wrong debate, because it did not seem that the intrinsic merits of cities and their development were being adequately debated. We differ from the Executive because we think that a different approach is required. We believe that, no matter how bright the minds that are involved, no matter how eager and sincere the ministers and no matter the amount of taxpayers' money that is spent, the Executive cannot back winners, although that is what it seeks to do—

That is just IDS.

Another day, Fergus, another day.

In the strategy, cities are chosen from a range of urban centres according to a geographic definition and by size. Choosing cities in that arbitrary way is flawed. We define Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee as cities because of their size. Since 1997, we have added Inverness and Stirling, both of which have received royal charters. They are to be congratulated on receiving the charters and on being included in the Executive's plans in one way or another.

The difficulty with the economic approach is that it leaves out several other areas that make a significant contribution to Scotland's economic activity. For example, Paisley has 74,000 inhabitants, East Kilbride has 73,000 inhabitants and Livingston has 50,000 inhabitants. All those places are larger than Inverness, which has 40,000 inhabitants, and Stirling, which has 32,000 inhabitants. That is the flaw at the heart of the strategy.

I took a lot of interventions during my speech and perhaps did not have a chance to put out some of the other messages around that point. We are spatially planning what we want to do in Scotland—we are not considering cities and their boundaries in isolation. Every city vision was based on close collaboration between the city and its immediate surroundings. East Kilbride and Paisley, as well as all the cities' other civic and community partners throughout Scotland, were involved in the process.

I thank the minister for his answer, as it leads me to consider another place that is clearly an economic centre, but which is not a city and is therefore not included in the process. That is the fair city of Perth, which is talked of as and considered to be a city and, indeed, had a lord provost until the local government reorganisation of 1974. However, Perth is not a city, as it does not have a royal charter. There is great concern that, sandwiched as it is between Dundee and Stirling, Perth is not able to access the funding, is not part of the strategy and cannot be part of the networking that will result from the Executive's programme.

Indeed, Perth and Kinross Council has confirmed to me that it has been approached by Stirling Council to discuss what Stirling might do but has not received any such approaches from Dundee. If the minister feels that areas outwith the immediate cities must be brought together, I should tell him that much more needs to be done in that respect.

Instead of managing the situation and having a top-down approach, we can change cities for the better and improve economies and public services on a national basis by ensuring that everyone benefits from a reduction in business rates and that every council—not just every city—can free up its spending through an end to ring fencing in all areas except police funding. Moreover, there must be better infrastructure in and between the cities to ensure that other areas outwith the cities are pulled in and pulled up economically.

Cities are prosperous because of their organic activity and the interaction between commercial businesses in them. We argue that the Executive, simply by picking and choosing cities, is leaving out areas of similar merit. That is why we have lodged our amendment.

I move amendment S2M-526.4, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"believes that the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness and Stirling are vital drivers of economic growth in Scotland and that they, together with Scotland's urban and rural economies, would benefit from a reduction in non-domestic rates, an improvement in transport infrastructure and better public services and further believes these three policies would achieve far more than centrally-directed government-inspired initiatives, strategic plans and visions."

Overall, there were many good things in the "Building Better Cities" document. It was encouraging that it included strategies that encompassed various policy strands such as housing, transport, economic regeneration and education. We would all agree that such partnership thinking is vital. The document also contained a stated commitment to sustainability and a recognition of the key challenge that we face in spreading success more widely around the country while managing current growth to improve quality of life in our cities.

In its motion, the Executive is keen to point out the progress that has been made since that policy statement in January. However, if the development of our cities is based on the framework outlined in "Building Better Cities", it will not give us sustainable cities.

I am sad to say that the environmental aspects of building better cities are not fully explored and that sustainability is by far the weakest of the six key themes set out in the document. It is mentioned only in the introduction and no fully fledged examples of sustainable development are given in the rest of the document. Sustainability is not an add-on; it must be integral. Without sustainable development, our cities will not achieve the diverse and productive economy that the document seeks.

I will look at the key issues that are dealt with in the document's sustainable development strand. The Green party supports the Government's target of recycling 25 per cent of household waste by 2006. However, the document does not mention recycling or waste reduction after the introductory pages. We should recognise that households produce relatively little waste compared with industry and commerce. It would be more satisfying if, in the development of city policy, figures and objectives were distinguished from each other and industrial waste and commercial waste were given greater emphasis and appropriate targets. We must ensure that the national waste strategy is integrated with "Building Better Cities".

Transport is also a recognised part of sustainable development. The figures on page 13 of the document suggest that traffic levels in the five cities are set to increase by around 30 per cent by 2021. Although we welcome the commitment to improve public transport and acknowledge that each city is spending money on bus priority measures, park-and-ride schemes, new rail links and so on, it seems that, as usual, managing traffic is more of an objective than reducing the need to travel and overall traffic levels. The document barely mentions those issues.

For example, the five cities allocated only £6.6 million for walking, cycling and safer streets initiatives over the four years to 2003-04. It is unlikely that more people will be tempted on to their bicycles or that more children will walk to school unless safety for cyclists and pedestrians is vastly improved. Walking and cycling—

I agree with much of what the member says about the need to prioritise safer streets, walking and cycling. Does he agree that the City of Edinburgh Council's commitment—part-funded by the Executive—to introduce 20mph zones around all our schools is an excellent commitment and that it is exactly the way we need to go in our cities?

I welcome the initiatives that Sarah Boyack outlines, which are central to building better cities. However, my problem is that I do not feel that that vision is always properly integrated into the document.

I contrast the £6.6 million that is being spent to promote walking, cycling and 20mph zones with the sum of up to £500 million that has been allocated to the M74 extension. As the document shows, 41 per cent of households in Glasgow have access to a car. Therefore, the majority of households do not have access to a car, yet that vast amount of money is being spent on building the motorway.

What about the other priorities? Community planning is mentioned repeatedly in a variety of contexts as a framework for development, and the need for community involvement in decision making is recognised. However, the definition of environmental justice on page 22 of the document is watered down with no mention of community involvement in planning or the need to address environmental justice in new developments. Community planning must be led by communities; it must be planning by, not just for, communities.

Employment is rightly emphasised strongly in the document, with many statements that relate to job creation, training and business diversification. However, a green jobs strategy is not mentioned in the document. I am pleased that the minister talked today about Stirling—the city that is not covered in the document—and its development of ecological opportunities, including employment opportunities.

Where the document discusses energy diversification in Aberdeen, it focuses on the internationalisation of existing oil and gas industries. I welcome the statements that the minister made today about looking at the technologies of the next century rather than those of the previous century.

No real distinction is made between locally owned and multinational corporations. Local companies are key parts of local communities. Local companies are less likely to move operations overseas even if it is more profitable to do so, yet, typically, the "Building Better Cities" document names sectors such as biotechnology and call centres, which tend not to be locally owned.

Environmental issues do not relate simply to rural Scotland. It is encouraging to see a themed policy statement that encompasses a wide range of issues that affect Scotland's cities. However, there is not enough emphasis on the importance of the environment and sustainable development.

You must close now.

That is why I urge members to support the amendment. We must make progress on building better cities through integrating sustainable development fully in all aspects of the process.

I move amendment S2M-526.3, to leave out from "since" to end and insert:

"; welcomes the bringing together of a wider range of policy strands; believes, however, that sustainability must lie at the heart of urban policy rather then being an afterthought to economic growth, and urges the Scottish Executive to take forward a policy of urban regeneration that is led primarily by the needs of local communities, rather than by big business."

I emphasise to members that the debate is tight; in fact it is oversubscribed and I must hold members to time.

When Mark Ballard was speaking, I was struck by the thought that "Building Better Cities: Delivering Growth and Opportunities" was perhaps like a book in the bible rather than the whole bible. It was not intended to contain all the answers to all the issues. Perhaps it is more like "Genesis" than "Exodus"—at least I hope so in this context.

Will the member give way?

I would like to get going, especially as the member went a little over time in his speech.

Liberal Democrats welcome and value the cities review and the recognition of the magnetic hub importance of Scotland's city regions. The document does not have the last word on a complex and changing situation—it does not have all the answers, but it is a useful analysis and snapshot.

The success or failure of Scotland's cities, particularly Glasgow, is crucial to Scotland, and the ability to link economic revival with community regeneration is vital to the health of our society and the opportunities that are available to our citizens. We cannot allow the story of our cities to be a tale of two cities—an upward, vibrant European city in part and a darker, declining, deprived, blighted hinterland; two societies that sometimes co-exist like strangers. We have to be able to link economic regeneration with social justice.

The review's emphasis on sustainable solutions is welcome because too often investment has been made in part of the problem only, and the part that has missed out has been local community involvement or effective, longer-term maintenance. That is a strand that runs through the document, despite what Mark Ballard said about that.

I want to concentrate on Glasgow and on some issues that are key to the city's future. Foremost among them is the issue of business rates—although the issue is slightly different from what Brian Monteith suggested. Colleagues from other parts of Scotland frequently complain when money is spent on Glasgow to help to tackle the city's health problems or the consequences of its poverty. Less common is sympathetic comment on the £83 million that Glasgow loses every year to the uniform business rates pool. It is a nonsense that there is no direct relation between the profits of Glasgow's enterprise and investment in enhancing the life chances of its citizens. It is high time that the proceeds of Glasgow's business rates and the profits of its buoyant economy were made available to spend in Glasgow. I am glad that the review has kept open the possibility of moving forward in that area, which I hope will happen as part of the local government finance review.

I want to mention transport. Glasgow has the unique blessing of the underground which, I might point out, would not be built today under the sort of cost-benefit analyses that Government departments now use to evaluate major rail projects. The underground has the ability to enhance the urban network, but its ability to do so is greatly restricted by capacity problems at Queen Street and Central stations, where there are difficulties in the linkages between the two systems. I hope that the minister will be able to confirm today, or in the near future, that the Scottish Executive will give urgent approval to the crossrail project that will link those systems. I know that that has been the subject of discussion between Nicol Stephen, who is the Minister for Transport, Strathclyde Passenger Transport and others.

Let me say a brief word about structures. There is no doubt that current arrangements can be handicapped by a plethora of overlapping bodies that have to work in partnership but can sometimes damage one another's ability to move forward. For example, at least six bodies have a legitimate interest in transport and rail issues in Glasgow alone, to say nothing of the surrounding local authorities that might be involved outwith the city boundaries.

Similarly, some of the effectiveness and accountability issues that are raised by the social inclusion partnerships will be only partly resolved by the move towards community planning. Some SIPs use up to 30 per cent of their resources in staff and operating costs, which is not acceptable if we are to move forward. I accept that the imposition of a single body could create other problems, but I think that we need just to keep an eye on the situation to ensure that effective decisions can be made on many of those issues. However, the jury is out on that matter at the moment.

Let me also deal with two other issues. First, on planning, we need to be careful that as we move forward, particularly in the cities, we do not simply give the green light to the building of more and more houses in areas that are already congested and overcrowded. In recent years, the tilt has been towards housing developments without regard for the services that go with developments, such as schools, green places and all the rest of it. I think that we could do with a tilt backwards on that in the review of the national policy planning framework that is taking place. Suburban centres are also important in that context.

I welcome those comments from Robert Brown. Will he join me in acknowledging the difficult struggle that people in Glasgow's west end have faced over the past few years in opposing a housing development that is being pushed forward for a much-used and well-loved local park? Is not that symbolic of what is happening across Glasgow and many other cities in Scotland?

I was thinking very much of the issues in the west end of Glasgow and in areas such as Rutherglen and Cambuslang, where that situation has prevailed. Existing planning restrictions, conservation areas and listed-building status do not seem to offer sufficient protection against unsuitable developments in high-quality urban environments.

In my last few seconds, I want to make a final point about the importance to the cities of manufacturing industry. The issue has been given greater prominence by the recent announcement about Cambuslang—albeit that it is outwith the city of Glasgow—where Hoover is set to reduce and eliminate its manufacturing force. If organisations such as Hoover cannot be compelled or persuaded to stay in Scotland to help us to improve and increase our manufacturing capacity, we will have some difficulty in being able to sustain the balanced environment that we need for our cities.

We need to go forward on a whole series of issues. The document is a useful beginning and a useful tool for analysis, but we look forward to having further debates in the future on many of the issues that arise about our very important cities.

I welcome the debate. I also welcome the investment that is to come from the city growth fund, which will make a real difference to people in our cities. For those of us who live in Edinburgh, it will improve our city streets and our bus information and it will play a part in tackling congestion.

Edinburgh was awarded £24 million from the fund, the aim of which is to improve the quality of life for people in our six cities. I know that the Minister for Finance and Public Services, who has left the chamber, visited Edinburgh in September this year to see for himself what the improvements will mean on the ground. Edinburgh will undertake urban rail improvements and improvements to the Usher Hall. The funding will also allow improvements to be made to parks, pavements and roads in the capital. We are talking about key investment for key infrastructure.

I am glad that the minister acknowledged that Edinburgh is a world-class city. It is a vibrant and cosmopolitan city with a dynamic economy. However, there is a huge amount that needs to be done, working in partnership, to ensure that Edinburgh remains a successful and attractive place to live, work and visit. In the debate, it is absolutely vital that we are not complacent about the progress that we need to make in future. That said, we can acknowledge the city's strengths and the progress that it has made in the financial sector, in the tourism industry and in the quality of our further and higher education institutions.

Scotland's future is bound up with the success of our cities. Edinburgh is the key driver for growth in the east of Scotland and beyond. We urgently need a regional approach that builds in work on affordable housing and tackling congestion. I would like the minister to undertake a creative examination of the business rates process—I will focus briefly on that issue later in my speech. The Executive's partnership work and partnerships between the cities, including Edinburgh and Glasgow, and between Edinburgh and its neighbouring authorities in the south-east of Scotland, are absolutely critical.

I want to focus on a couple of issues on which we really have to make a difference. Housing is a key issue for Edinburgh. We have a growing population, but also a growing problem. We are moving towards a crisis in the lack of affordable housing for the people of Edinburgh. We have a booming economy, but we are not getting the affordable houses that allow people to live in our city. I commend the City of Edinburgh Council for the work that it is doing on tackling homelessness and for its affordable housing strategy. I also welcome the £3 million that the Executive has made available for work on affordable housing. However, if we are to tackle the problem, we need sustained, long-term, additional support. Edinburgh's £17 million budget buys around 350 houses a year through new build and refurbishment. If we are to tackle the real affordability crisis that we face, we need to double that amount of money. A modest increase in investment could lever in significant private investment. A joint approach is needed between the City of Edinburgh Council and the private sector. I hope that the minister will take my plea on board and will discuss it with the Minister for Communities in advance of the next spending review.

Transport is also vital. I welcome the work that the Executive has undertaken with the City of Edinburgh Council. We need integrated, reliable and efficient transport. Huge investment is planned for transport but we must ensure that we tackle our congestion problems. I hope that the minister will work with the City of Edinburgh Council to tackle congestion. That will enable us to meet the Scottish Executive's targets for bringing down traffic levels in the city.

Given that Sarah Boyack said that the future of Edinburgh was dependent on its hinterland, does she agree that Fife is an important part of that hinterland? Will she join me in urging the City of Edinburgh Council to take on board the views of Fifers on the plan to extend the exemption from congestion charging to some of the outer parts of Edinburgh but not to Fife?

The biggest issue before us is the massive investment that is needed in public transport. A consultation process is going on at the moment and I welcome the fact that the surrounding councils are engaged in that discussion.

Another big issue on my agenda is the weeks of endless speculation about the investment that is to be made in Waverley railway station. I know that Christine May agrees that Waverley is a big issue for people in Fife. This week, we heard about investment in lengthening platforms. However, there have been all sorts of speculation and rumour that we are not going to get the investment that is needed in Waverley station. There is much that we need to do now to tackle congestion problems. I ask the minister to comment on that in his winding up speech.

I said that I would briefly mention business rates. There is scope for looking at business rates. If we take Edinburgh as an example, the council has invested in the new conference centre, the burgeoning financial district and the superb festivals that draw people into the city throughout the year. However, because of the current pooling of business rates, the city does not receive a direct return on that investment. I do not expect an instant response from the minister on that point, but I would like a reassurance that he is at least examining the issues and considering a flexible approach.

I will conclude on the issue of quality of life. People who live in Edinburgh deserve to benefit from living in a world-class city, but not everybody does. There is a serious imbalance in our city, particularly in my constituency. We are gaining the wrong kind of reputation. A lot of superb cultural events happen in Edinburgh, such as those in our theatres and the forthcoming MTV attraction, which I know my colleague Ms McNeill is most interested in. However, we have a big problem in that we are getting out of sync. There are problems in my constituency with stag parties and binge boozing and, at the last count, there were seven clubs offering what is euphemistically described as adult entertainment. I do not think that that is the way for Edinburgh to go as a world-class tourism destination and it is not what the residents of Edinburgh want. I would like a commitment from the minister that he will progress the work on licensing. Some superb work is being done by the Minister for Justice as a result of the Nicholson review. A gap needs to be plugged on issues such as lap dancing and strip clubs. I hope that the Executive will take that on board and bring back proposals so that Edinburgh can tackle those issues urgently.

The minister made a very positive start in his speech. Edinburgh has been transformed over the past 20 years; we must move forward for the next 20. That means that there must be partnership work between the City of Edinburgh Council and the Executive. We must continue Labour's leadership because although we have done a lot, there is a lot more still to do.

The debate is about the vision of Scotland's future that this Parliament was created to deliver. For the Parliament to work for the Scottish people it has to turn ideas, aspirations and forward planning into reality.

With the building better cities initiative, the Executive has correctly identified Scottish cities as important generators of Scottish economic activity. It is crucial that Scotland now moves ahead in its development of business and industry in order to create jobs and reverse the trend of falling population.

In developing and revitalising Scottish cities through successful economic growth, it is also important that we remember the failures of the past. That means that local and central Government must understand the demands of shifting populations and co-ordinate growth so that Scottish cities not only meet the needs of their own citizens and businesses but become the creators of economic, social and cultural dynamism locally and nationally.

Scotland's population is changing and faces many challenges, including coping with a falling birth rate and retaining the university and college graduates of tomorrow. As Scottish graduates earn almost £3,000 a year less than the United Kingdom average, the Executive must make a firm commitment to forge the university and business sector links that are essential in providing decent, modern, well-paid jobs for Scotland's graduates and school leavers. Although the UK predicts general population growth over the next two decades, Scotland continues to haemorrhage people. Without the dynamic of immigration, Scotland faces the real prospect of depopulation.

Creating employment and fuelling growth in our cities means promoting diversity and an atmosphere that is conducive to opportunity. Scotland needs to work towards an economy that is socially responsible. Businesses and communities should set goals and work in partnership to achieve them. Residents of the Scottish cities involved in the initiative need hope for jobs now, not later on.

The Confederation of British Industry Scotland reports a continuing trend in falling orders, declining output, pressures on price and job losses—all at a time when Scotland is witnessing the highest proportion in 11 years of Scottish companies that claim that they are operating below capacity.

We need to give hope to people who are searching for work in our cities. Dundee lost 679 jobs in manufacturing industries between 1998 and 2000 and Glasgow contains six of the 10 parliamentary constituencies that have the highest rates of unemployment. Building better cities requires a blend of manufacturing and service jobs to ensure burgeoning, well-rounded and sustainable growth. Scottish cities can only benefit from smart growth. Forty per cent of all Scottish employee jobs are located within five city authorities. Since 1995, 40 per cent of new recipients of Scottish inward investment chose to locate in those five cities.

To ensure that we do not repeat past mistakes, Scotland will need to keep an eye on the way in which cities grow. Cities should be seen as good places to live and centres from which sustainable growth can expand. Unfortunately, residents of Glasgow and Dundee are in worse health than residents in any other part of Scotland. On the whole, traffic is projected to grow 27 per cent by 2021. Existing infrastructure and public services therefore need to be updated to sustain intelligent expansion. Scotland must examine the base on which her cities are built if we are to connect the new with the old properly. We must set down policies that promote prosperity and enterprise. Scottish firms should not have to pay property taxes at a poundage rate that is 9 per cent higher than those in England.

Honest economic growth requires economic policies that are suited to our specific needs. In Glasgow, 58 per cent of residents are not satisfied with their neighbourhood. The more quality housing, convenient schools and improved public resources that we can provide, the better off we will be, with safer streets, a cleaner environment and a more satisfied work force.

Those are straightforward, commonsense aims that can be delivered for all Scotland's citizens, but that must be done with total community involvement. All too often, the view of individual citizens is blurred by the interests of businesses and local councils. The general public needs to be an equal partner in making decisions about how their cities and communities grow. Regrettably, development planning is often based on the policymakers' assumptions, which are not always correct: industry will not automatically move with the population; migration will not automatically follow jobs; and the creation of jobs will not always mean revitalisation.

Local residents, along with council and community business leaders, will play a pivotal role in how planning progresses. All must be involved and contribute. I wish the building better cities project well. The initiative is about vision, but its aspirations are based on hard reality and will ultimately be judged by its results.

No one will be surprised to learn that, as a Glasgow MSP, in the next five minutes I will talk about Glasgow's story. However, I will do so only in the context of the importance of the city to the rest of the economy, not for its own sake. Glasgow is Scotland's largest city and has a population of more than 600,000. It is important to note that Glasgow serves the function of driving economic activity in the wider conurbation. The issue is not only Glasgow's success, but the contributions of other surrounding towns, not least the minister's town of East Kilbride.

As Robert Brown said, Glasgow's story is a tale of two cities. Glasgow is a booming centre of economic activity, but it is also still managing the decline of the industrial sector and still has too high a level of unemployment and too large a skills gap. At one level, the story is about a physical process of ensuring that we have the capital infrastructure in place for economic growth, but at another, it is about those who live and work in the city. That is what I will talk about.

Glasgow will receive £40.1 million over three years as an outcome of the cities review. That is a generous settlement out of the £90 million that was made available, but there is still a lot of disappointment that no long-term solution has been agreed on the way in which Glasgow pays for, supports and provides services for surrounding areas. I support the views that Robert Brown and others have expressed that we should consider as one potential solution returning the uniform business rate to Glasgow.

We must spread the success. The key message about Glasgow is that its economic growth has outstripped that of probably every other area in Scotland. The key point is how we spread that economic growth around the citizens of Glasgow and, indeed, Scotland. I recently went to an area in my constituency that is known as Merchant City—some members have perhaps spent time in the cafés and bars down there. The transformation there is quite remarkable, but no one should be fooled by the wonderful appearance of Merchant City, because we have issues in Glasgow about the growth in jobs not benefiting Glaswegians. We have a qualifications problem: Glaswegians do not have the qualifications and skills to get the new jobs that we are creating. The key priority for Glasgow is to invest in ensuring that Glaswegians get the opportunities, qualifications and skills.

I fully support the Scottish Executive's view on social inclusion, which I believe runs through all its policies. Addressing problems there is fundamental to moving on. Better-paid jobs will provide the higher income that we are trying to achieve for all our citizens.

I acknowledge the renaissance in the shipbuilding industry in my constituency and in other constituencies, as the apprenticeship schemes on the Clyde have begun to reverse some of the decline that has been discussed.

Mark Ballard raised the subject of call centres. We have had to accept reluctantly the growth in call centres in Glasgow city centre to replace some of the former industrial jobs, but we are now losing call centre jobs to other countries, and there has to be some way to address how to retain them, because it will be a significant loss to Scotland if we do not do so.

Regeneration is Glasgow's key priority. As we have seen, investment is being made at an amazing pace on the Clyde waterfront in what is a remarkable project. In particular, there is the harbour development, which lies partly in my constituency. I have watched a presentation on the recruitment plan for the development, and I was heartened to hear about the way in which industries are to be revitalised.

I turn to the questions of housing and planning in relation to developments such as the harbour development. Planning is fundamental to cities. It is not acceptable to me that we are to build 3,500 houses at a harbour without considering what could be done to attract social housing. I do not underestimate how difficult that is, but I cannot whole-heartedly support the project without there being consideration for that. In my constituency, which covers the vast majority of the west end, there is a serious, chronic shortage of social housing—the problem is probably worse there than it is anywhere else. As Patrick Harvie pointed out, we face what is probably the greatest ever number of planning applications for flat after flat in tiny areas of the west end that should instead be green spaces. My closing message, on planning, is that all authorities should be required to consider housing need across the board, and not just the planning process.

I think it was a former publicity man for the City of Glasgow District Council who came up with the slogan, "Glasgow's miles better." Some years later, when he came to Edinburgh, people asked him how he could now promote the capital. He pointed out that he had meant, "Glasgow's miles better than it was." Externally, that seems to be the case. I was in Glasgow yesterday and, compared with when I lived and worked there—under a previous Labour Administration—it looks very spruce, with lots of city-centre developments.

I confess that I am one of those who believe that the finest prospect offered by the modern conurbation is the motorway leading out of it, but people must live in cities, and those who make condescending remarks at cities' expense are as unfair as those who make similar uncomplimentary remarks at my expanse. Like overweight individuals, cities can become chronically obese and downright unhealthy unless regular toning takes place. In my view, toning—returning our cities to optimum health—is best achieved by boosting the general economy. A dynamic and competitive economy is, ultimately, the only way to create wealth, raise the quality of public services and thereby improve living standards in our cities and in other communities.

It was significant that, at this week's meeting of the Finance Committee, two of Scotland's top economists criticised the Executive's draft budget for appearing to increase the dependency of the Scottish economy on the public sector. In 2001, Scottish public spending represented 47 per cent of gross domestic product. According to Donald MacRae of Lloyds TSB Scotland, by the end of this year, public spending will have risen to 50 per cent of GDP, and it could rise even further. The size of the public sector compared with that of the private sector is woefully skewed.

We need to do far more to encourage business to make our cities the vibrant and dynamic places that we would like them to be. Productivity is too low in both the public and private sectors.

On thriving businesses in Glasgow, does the member agree with my constituents, who feel that there is something unjust about the level of wealth that is generated in Glasgow, in that it is not retained within the city to benefit the citizens, who are currently not benefiting from Glasgow's economic boom? Is he in favour of addressing business rates so that Glasgow can benefit from the hard work that it has done on the economy?

I accept that point. We have talked a lot about reducing business rates.

To deliver growth and opportunity in our cities, we must get away from the subsidy culture and develop the private sector. In the draft budget, Executive spending is increasing on items such as tourism, sport and culture, but the sums spent on economic development are decreasing, with only £120 per capita being spent on developing Scottish business and industry, which is less than the figure in Wales or Ireland.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but he is in his last minute.

Much more money is being spent on health—the figure is around £1,500 per capita—and few of us would grudge that extra spending, provided that we were sure that we were getting value for money.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment.

Sorry, but you have two minutes remaining. That was my mistake.

Fine.

Ted Brocklebank made a point about subsidies. Will he say which subsidy the Conservative party would remove and from where?

It would take longer than two minutes to get into the detail of that issue.

I want to talk about health. Nobody denies that there should be adequate spending on health but, in "Building Better Cities", the Executive admits that

"Across the urban central belt of Scotland … life expectancy is shorter than it is in any other region of the European Union."

In Glasgow, the mortality rates for stomach cancer, lung cancer and heart disease are more than a third higher than in the average local authority area. A person's chances of dying of heart disease are two and a half times higher in Glasgow's Castlemilk housing scheme than they are in suburban Newton Mearns.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. Such inequalities exist in all of Scotland's cities. Although I accept that it is early days, the Executive's strategy in "Building Better Cities" appears to offer few real solutions. On any impartial judgment, the Executive's pledge to deliver growth and opportunities for Scotland's cities is a long way from being realised. Although I commend the Executive's efforts so far, any progress report would be along the lines of, "Could do a lot better."

I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate and to comment on the "Building Better Cities" report and on "Edinburgh's City Vision: Building a Better Edinburgh", which is the City of Edinburgh Council's response to the report. Other members have mentioned the importance of cities, so, given that we do not have a great deal of time, I will skirt round the importance of Edinburgh.

One key point is that we should recognise that each city has its own identity and should have its own challenges, problems and successes taken into account. I will dwell on some of Edinburgh's problems. Sarah Boyack rightly highlighted the major problem of the lack of affordable housing, which has a major impact on planning policy. I welcome the City of Edinburgh Council's robust policy on affordable social housing, as a result of which around 2,000 houses will come on stream in the not-too-distant future. However, at present, the lack of affordable housing is costing us key workers and means that we are failing to attract the people whom we want to come to Edinburgh and Scotland.

The lack of affordable housing causes major problems for the public sector, for example in the care home and education sectors, and it is important for Edinburgh and Scotland that we do something to tackle it. We must also tackle the high land prices in Edinburgh—land costs about £2 million per acre—and the impact of that on the local council and on public and private sector organisations.

We are dealing with inequalities of wealth. My constituency covers areas of great poverty as well as areas in which people are doing well. We must ensure that we tackle poverty, not only in the large conurbations where we find deprivation, such as Muirhouse in my constituency, but also in the pockets of deprivation and poverty in Edinburgh, which are much harder to reach.

The issue of non-domestic rates, which members have highlighted, applies equally to Edinburgh as it does to Glasgow, if not more so. We have the problem of the constant fight between economic growth, which is necessary, and the needs of the environment.

I will mention some points about Edinburgh that are of concern to me. I will pass quickly over the issue of policing in the city because it has been raised many times before. The support that Lothian and Borders police receives for its role in policing the capital city does not compare well with what happens in Westminster, which is the nearest equivalent. I welcome the fact that the minister is considering reviewing the position across the board. The Executive will have to come back to the issue. I urge the minister to look favourably on the request from the chief constable for special funding over and above that for Edinburgh.

Another issue that has arisen recently is the fact that the Executive's plans for integrating community planning and social inclusion partnerships will bring quite a lot of challenges. It is important that we involve local people in our discussions. What concerns many of us in Edinburgh is the fact that the new arrangements will mean a potential reduction in SIP funds for the city from £7.2 million in 2003-04 to £3.5 million by 2006-07, with a knock-on reduction in European matched funding. Many local projects in my constituency, including the Pilton partnership and the Muirhouse and Drylaw community centres, will see their activities under threat because of that. I would like us to take the same approach that we took on Arbuthnott, which is not to reduce the work that people are doing, but to take stock and to keep a standstill budget before moving forward with growth in specific areas—Glasgow being one area that is going to get some of the extra money. We should not be pulling back.

The success of Edinburgh and Scotland will be based on education. Scotland's schools—especially those in Edinburgh—face a particular set of problems. Edinburgh has a growing population and will have a growing school roll. That means that we do not have the same ability to close down schools here as there is elsewhere in Scotland. There is also the enormous cost of land in Edinburgh. For example, in Craigroyston, we are struggling to find a site for a new school not only for that area but for the waterfront, which is an important development not only for the city, but for the rest of Scotland. I ask the Executive seriously to consider supporting to a greater extent than it has the council's public-private partnership 2 bid.

Many people talk about the success of Edinburgh's economy. I do not think that we can be complacent about that. A job lost in Edinburgh is still a job lost to a family and the city. I ask the Executive and the council to work together to discuss the issue of our losing civil service jobs from Edinburgh. That will have an impact not only on this city, but on the region.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Because of the time limit, the Scottish Socialist Party is not going to get a chance to contribute to the debate. We will be the only party to be denied the opportunity to speak in the debate. I ask the Presiding Officer to think about whether that is fair. I have sat through the whole debate and have listened to other members with a great deal of interest. For me to be denied the opportunity to speak is not on.

The debate is oversubscribed. It is a matter for the Presiding Officers to decide whom they call. Your intervention means that I will probably not be able to call Bruce Crawford either.

I subscribe to the comments that Robert Brown and other members have made concerning the need to ensure that agencies' activities in the cities do not overlap. I also make a plea in respect of the large number of consultancy reports that we receive in Glasgow and the conferences that are organised at the same time. When we consider a cull of the organisations, we should perhaps also consider a cull of the consultants, who are good at creative reporting on this issue, and of the conferences that are organised on the subject.

Like many other urban areas, Glasgow has suffered dreadfully economically due to its dependency on heavy industries, especially during the 1920s and 1930s. Undoubtedly, the economic transition away from the traditional industries has followed a number of periods of difficulty. It was due to the utter complacency of the Conservative Government and 18 years of Tory rule that Glasgow found itself facing the many challenges that we face in the post-1997 years.

However, Glasgow is fighting back. In my constituency, unemployment has been reduced by 46 per cent and five brand new secondary schools have been built—a pipe dream during the years of Tory rule.

Will the member give way?

I am afraid that I do not have time.

There has been record investment in the stock-transfer process and the opportunity, for the first time in my generation, for full employment in the city of Glasgow. That has not happened since 1967, when I was born.

Other members have said that we must harness the opportunities for the benefit of Glasgow's citizens. I believe that the minister must take immediate action on that. There have been several consultancy reports on the best opportunities that exist. There have also been several conferences in Glasgow and other cities on the issue.

How do we ensure that those who live in Glasgow benefit from the city's economic achievements? One example of how to do that is the St Rollox Partnership initiative in my constituency, which has resulted in more than 90 per cent of the local Tesco superstore's employees being local residents. I would like the minister to consider that example, which is a partnership with the business sector. Recently, I met the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, which advised me that it would like to consider the possibility of an employers charter that would ensure that employers have the opportunity to employ locally.

On council tax, we face a number of challenges. I do not support the Scottish socialists' proposal of a service tax. However, I believe that there is a need for a top-to-bottom review to ensure that those who decide to play and work in Glasgow also consider residing in Glasgow. I acknowledge that there has been progress in restricting council tax increases in Glasgow. For example, council tax in East Dunbartonshire has increased by 5.6 per cent, whereas Glasgow's council tax has increased by only 2.5 per cent.

I welcome today's debate, but I believe that it is time to ensure opportunities for full employment in Glasgow so that those who are unemployed in Glasgow can benefit.

I call Bruce Crawford for two minutes.

In that case I shall cut straight to the quick and get a press release out at the same time.

Too many agencies operate in silos in our cities. They work to their own ends and deliver their own corporate plans, but they do not necessarily deliver for the people whom they profess to serve. The creation of multichannel decision making and the lack of connected executive responsibility are causing less ownership, more rationing of resources and, most important, the draining of our people's energy and the stifling of innovation.

Let me give members an example of what I mean. Stirling regards itself as our most vibrant city. Certainly, there is great aspiration for the city. A strong community partnership has been formed that involves 10 different sectors and organisations. One of its key aims is to develop Stirling as a healthy city that is recognised as such by the World Health Organisation. However, if the community partnership decides that the key to real health improvements comes from the funding of housing, sport or education, there is simply no capacity or culture to enable the partnership to make a significant shift of resources from the NHS sector or any other sector into its priority areas.

If we want successful cities, we must rid them of the shackles that hold them back and ensure that we have better funding streams and processes to enable funding to be shifted from one budget to another more successfully. Our cities need connected executive responsibility, with the people as the driving force for democratic change. They also need to be supplied with adequate resources to drive hard for sustainable success.

I am two seconds short of two minutes, Presiding Officer.

Thank you. We move to wind-up speeches. I call Patrick Harvie. You have five minutes, Mr Harvie.

In the minutes that I have, I will try to respond to as much as I can of what has been said in the debate. I apologise to any members whom I miss out.

Andy Kerr has given us what looks like an holistic vision of our cities, which is greatly to be welcomed. However, we remain concerned that sustainability is not yet at the heart of urban policy. The minister spoke about Glasgow as a metropolitan city and about major regeneration projects. However, all the while the smaller aspects of urban policy have been missed out. I refer to the community assets that Robert Brown and I have discussed, which all too often are railroaded and bulldozed.

The minister—and Nicola Sturgeon in an intervention—recognised some of the appalling costs of economic growth. Those costs have not been addressed—they have merely been acknowledged. The issue of incapacity benefit has been raised. Thirty per cent of Glasgow's working population is not in employment. Economic growth in itself does not address such problems.

We are all concerned about people on incapacity benefit. Can the member demonstrate to me exactly how people are on incapacity benefit because of economic growth?

I am hoping to demonstrate that the economic growth that has taken place in Glasgow—and which neither the Labour Party nor the SNP has acknowledged—does not solve the problem. A bigger economy is not necessarily more socially just.

The minister talked about lifting our sights. Why can we not lift our sights beyond the narrow concept of gross domestic product growth and look to true quality of life?

I will now address some of Mr Ewing's comments, which is bound to please him. He gives enthusiastic support to the single-issue politics of growth. Too often, improving our economy is seen as synonymous with growing our economy. A bigger economy does not necessarily create healthier places to live or more fulfilling jobs to do. Growth that undermines our health, freedom, dignity and relationships is not progress.

I will now respond to Brian Monteith's speech. He began with what is becoming a familiar Tory theme—let us tax less and spend more on public services. Many of his comments were not connected with our cities, but those that were, were every bit as single issue as the speeches that preceded them. Again he called for growth—any growth—at any price: the same old single-issue thinking.

In his amendment to the Executive motion, my colleague Mark Ballard sought to connect the ways in which we live in our cities: the waste that we produce, how we get to work, where our work and homes are located and which businesses we buy our goods and services from. Do we buy them from local businesses that create and sustain the community strength of our cities, or from the soulless multinationals that undermine working conditions, social justice and the environment at global and local levels?

Robert Brown's support for Glasgow's crossrail scheme will, of course, receive my enthusiastic backing. However, we must go further and say that investment in public transport must be seen as an alternative to the ghastly, obscenely expensive, outrageous M74 northern extension project. Only a tiny fraction of the Executive's transport spend is directed at walking and cycling. Public transport is also not prioritised. We need those forms of sustainable transport to be right at the heart of transport policy, not just squeezed in between the gaps in the traffic.

Many members have mentioned jobs. We must look to protect local businesses and to invest in public transport, community-owned renewables, community recycling and other social enterprises. All those green alternatives create more jobs than the grey policies that they would replace.

Although we support the attempt to take an holistic approach to urban development, there is something lacking at its heart. I urge members to support Mark Ballard's amendment, to give up the single-minded, single-issue politics of growth at any price and to make true quality of life central, creating a healthy and sustainable green future for our cities. I support Mark Ballard's amendment.

I, too, welcome the debate and the many constructive contributions that have been made by members from all parties. I am still reeling from Fergus Ewing's speech, however; perhaps I will be able to work it out later, when I read the Official Report.

I also welcome the action and investment that has flowed from the cities review in all our six cities. That gives us a positive base on which to build. It is appropriate that we pay tribute to the excellent work done by all local authorities and partner bodies that have been involved in developing the responses to the cities review and, crucially, which are implementing its proposals.

I echo a point that Rhona Brankin made in an intervention earlier about the importance of our thinking beyond city boundaries. I represent a constituency that spans the Edinburgh city boundary and stretches into East Lothian. It is vital—and I know that this is happening—that cities work with the areas that they border and they must continue to be vigilant about that.

The cities review and the debate have highlighted the great diversity of Scottish cities, which is positive. However, a number of themes have arisen and it is important that ministers take them on board. We have, quite rightly, heard a great deal about transport infrastructure and environmental concerns, but two issues feature time and again, particularly in the contributions from my colleagues: affordable housing and skills shortages.

In Edinburgh the situation in relation to affordable housing is now reaching a critical stage. Margaret Smith talked about the need to be able to house key workers in the city, but the issue goes beyond that. Our inability to meet social need in this city is profound, given the extent to which the property market is now rocketing. I make a genuine plea—and I note Pauline McNeill's comments on this from the perspective of the other end of the M8—that the Executive steps up its efforts as a matter of urgency and works with local authorities to address the situation.

I also highlight skills shortages. It is not an exaggeration to say that in some sectors in Edinburgh it is becoming acutely difficult—and in some cases it is virtually impossible—to get skilled, qualified people. Margaret Smith mentioned the care sector, but of course in many trades, particularly in the construction industry, recruitment is becoming nigh on impossible in certain areas. I say to the minister and to my colleagues on the Enterprise and Culture Committee that it is vital that we address that. We must consider the particular role that industry has to play in that regard and how the modern apprenticeship scheme can be developed appropriately and we must recognise the vital role of our further education colleges. Colleagues on the committee will know that we heard a great deal from representatives of FE colleges at our meeting this week.

There are tremendous opportunities here in Edinburgh, as in other cities, but I want to end on a specific point about Edinburgh. All too often the perception of Edinburgh is that it is simply a story of economic prosperity and success. To a degree that is true and I pay tribute to the Labour-led City of Edinburgh Council for its vision and determination in what it has achieved over the past 20 years. However, Edinburgh is not all about Harvey Nichols and Jenners; it is not all about castles and palaces. In my constituency are some of the most profound pockets of deprivation in the city. Craigmillar ranks fourth in the index of most deprived wards in Scotland and Restalrig, which is also in my constituency, also now features in the top 100. We must recognise that poverty exists right on our doorstep here in Edinburgh and we must work nationally and locally to close the gap.

The cities review has proved a valuable piece of work. I admit that it is more valuable than I thought it was going to be when it was launched. The challenge now is for us to maintain the momentum. We must work not just to address the problems of the past; we must act now to minimise problems in the future.

After the debate, we will be clear about the importance of cities to Scotland's success. My colleague Brian Monteith made the good point that Edinburgh is very much the driver of the Scottish economy. If we examine the most recent growth figures, which were announced this week, we find that Scotland would probably be in recession without the economic performance of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh region.

We must consider Scotland as a whole and must develop policies for the whole country. That means improving infrastructure throughout the country, reducing business taxation and tackling regulation, which is what our amendment calls for.

Will the member take an intervention on that?

If the member will forgive me, I will not, because I wish to make a number of points; I may allow him in later.

Given the nature of the debate, there was a danger that we would end up getting special pleading from all sides of the chamber. We got a bit of that—for example, Sarah Boyack and Margaret Smith spoke about Edinburgh and Robert Brown and Paul Martin talked about Glasgow. When discussing the record of the previous Conservative Government, Paul Martin—who I think has now left the chamber—seemed to forget about the Glasgow eastern area renewal project, which levered in some £250 million of private investment. That compares well with the £40 million of public investment from the city growth fund that has been invested over three years.

In his speech, Fergus Ewing mentioned everything from whisky to bottling friendship, but said very little about cities. Perhaps he should have deferred to his colleague Andrew Welsh, who made a thoughtful and comprehensive speech on cities. Mr Ewing did not even refer to the city of Inverness, which he represents.

I did. I invite the member to retract that.

I do not recall Mr Ewing referring to Inverness but, as he assures me that he did, I apologise.

As an Invernesian, I wonder whether Mr Ewing would agree that the best thing that the city fathers in Inverness could do would be to demolish the horrendous 1960s monstrosities that blight the riverside underneath the castle and to replace them with more sympathetic buildings.

I am most grateful for the member's kind retraction. The First Minister appeared to acknowledge that one of the best things that we could do for Inverness would be to rid it of the millstone of the PPP at Inverness airport terminal. The trouble with the cities review is that, instead of achieving such things, which could really make a difference to economic growth, we will achieve worthy but minor things.

That was an interesting point, but it would have been more relevant to make it in a debate on PPP, for example.

We have had some special pleading, so here is some of my own. I know from my regional interest that people in Perth feels that, although Perth is a city—albeit a city without a royal charter—and the ancient capital of Scotland, it is not given the same recognition as Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow, Stirling and so on. As Brian Monteith mentioned, Perth and Kinross Council feels that that is particularly unfair, given that the population of Dundee, for example, is in decline, while that of Perth and Kinross is on the increase. Even though Perth is becoming an increasingly popular place to live, it always seems to be losing out to Stirling and Dundee when it comes to central assistance.

Civil service job dispersal is an example of that. Dundee secured the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, but Perth and Kinross has missed out on all the projects that it has pursued, in spite of the fact that it has the lowest average earnings for men of any local authority area in Scotland.

We know all about the decision on Scottish Natural Heritage going to Inverness and the difficulties that that has caused. If the decision had been that SNH should go to Perth, many of the Executive's problems would have been averted. It might not be too late for ministers to change their minds on that, so I urge them to think again and to consider Perth as a safe third option for SNH's location.

If we isolate the cities and treat them as special cases, other equally needy parts of the country lose out. That is unfortunate and our amendment talks about the need to consider all parts of the country, not just our large cities, as economic drivers.

The territorial ambitions of cities also represent a threat. For example, there are those in Dundee who wish that city's boundaries to be extended to take in part of Perth and Kinross and Angus, in the mistaken belief that the people who live in those areas consume city services and should therefore be contributing to them through their council tax. In fact, the great majority of council spending goes on education and social work, neither of which is consumed by non-residents.

The best way for us to regenerate our cities and all our communities is to boost economic growth. Let us cut business rates, water charges and regulation and invest in our transport infrastructure. It is by getting government off the backs of people and business that we will achieve thriving and prosperous cities, both old and new, throughout Scotland.

This has been a strange debate. We have a principal motion and three amendments thereto and yet they have rarely interacted and we seem to have been shadow-boxing around the issues. However, we might be disparaging if we said that today's debate will not be one of the highlights of the Parliamentary calendar. Aside from the special pleading for individual cities, we can take a kinder view and say that valid points have arisen from the debate.

There was no contrast between the points that were being made because there was a great deal of consensus, and because many members were talking about two distinct documents. The Executive's motion is obviously about "Building Better Cities: Delivering Growth and Opportunities", while it is quite clear from our amendment that the SNP is talking about the "Review of Scotland's Cities—the analysis".

We take the view that the "Review of Scotland's Cities—the analysis" is a fundamentally important document, and that if we empanel a body of experts, it is important that we should take cognisance of that. That is why I highlight Fergus Ewing's mention of the comments made by Professor Ivan Turok from the department of urban studies at the University of Glasgow who indicated that the "Building Better Cities: Delivering Growth and Opportunities" document was a "modest response" to the range and intensity of the challenges facing the cities. He added that the document had

"surprisingly few concrete recommendations and proposals"

and said that the £90 million investment over three years was inadequate.

Although it was right that the review was initiated—by Henry McLeish in December 2000—we believe that the Government's response is, as Professor Turok said, inadequate. That might be one of the reasons why there has been a failure to engage in debate.

It is also quite clear that, although parties and participants made individual points, there is agreement. Many of the points made by the minister are not in dispute. Who could possibly dispute that cities matter, people matter and that planning is fundamental? Besides his interesting travelogue, the most important and valid point made by the minister was in his intervention on Mr Monteith, when he went on about the importance of city regions and co-operation. That has been addressed by others in the debate such as Mr Monteith, Ms Deacon and Ms Boyack—I apologise if I have missed anyone out.

We must acknowledge that our cities are particularly small. We must consider competitor cities. In Denmark and Sweden, Malmö and Copenhagen—in different countries and with different currencies—are conjoining to co-operate because they recognise that they must have critical mass to compete with urban metropolitan areas in countries such as France, Germany and England.

Will the member agree with me and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that while Berlin was the city of the last decade, Glasgow will be the city of the next decade?

I hope so, but if we are going to be successful, we must ensure that our cities fight individually and stand together. Co-operation between individual cities is important and Edinburgh and Glasgow either hang together or, as others have said in debates elsewhere, they will fall apart. It is important that we acknowledge that.

Mr Monteith made points that many of us would not disagree with as he gave us a valid view of cities. Given his predilection for football, I was surprised that he failed to give the ubiquitous Brechin a mention during his tour of cities that had not been mentioned.

No one would disagree with Mr Ballard's points on the importance of the environment. At the end of the day, cities are not just about the quality of jobs and the economy. They are about the quality of life of the people who live in them. Of course, we must acknowledge that cities are not just about building houses and creating jobs. We must ensure that the jobs are sustainable and that they are not detrimental to the environment, that the houses we live in are fit for purpose, and that our quality of life is acceptable.

Robert Brown also made valid points because manufacturing is important and that is where we have to distil the consensus within the chamber. Mr Ballard's points were valid and important, but Mr Brown's points about manufacturing were equally important. If we are to implement a strategy, we have to conjoin those two views and get a balance.

I am cognisant that others have referred to Edinburgh and that is important, but we must recognise that we should not be comparing cities just within Scotland. The city of Edinburgh's competitors should not be perceived as Glasgow and Dundee. If it is to succeed in the 21st century the city of Edinburgh must compete with Helsinki, Dublin and Copenhagen. Those are the competitors. The tragedy is that Edinburgh may be punching above its weight when it comes to Glasgow and Dundee, but it is losing out significantly in terms of its competitiveness with other places in Europe. We need to take cognisance of that.

Points made by Margaret Smith, and to some extent by Susan Deacon and others, were also valid. They said that Edinburgh, to some extent, is a victim of its own success. The development and driving forward of the economy is resulting in problems with infrastructure, skills shortages, a lack of affordable housing and transport problems. At the same time, under this Executive, Edinburgh is paying the price for its success. It is perceived that because Edinburgh is doing well it does not need any further assistance, which means that it is not being backed properly. The £23 million being put in by the Executive over three years does not meet the need identified by the City of Edinburgh Council for more than £200 million over 10 years, not for the whole city, but simply for affordable housing.

The outcome of this debate should be to bring matters together. We endorse the review. We do not believe that the Executive's critique and overview meet or benefit it.

I begin by supporting one point that Mr MacAskill made, which was about the international competitiveness of the city market, particularly in tourism terms. However, I recall going to Copenhagen last year with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to examine that issue and I tell Mr MacAskill that Edinburgh is not losing out internationally. Edinburgh is very much seen by Copenhagen, Vancouver and other leading tourist destinations round the world as an equal player. We should support the good work that goes on in that field, rather than always drawing a negative.

The Government's review of Scotland's cities, including its analysis and promotion of solutions, is an approach built on partnership. Far from being top down, as the Conservatives suggested, city visions are local authority and local partner led. In many questions, motions and debates, including today's, Parliament has expressed concern about Scotland's cities in relation to transport, health, jobs and the built environment. The devolved Government's response has been to work with cities and city-region partners to develop the "Building Better Cities" review.

City visions are part of a continuing process. They provide an overarching context for the development of each city region. It is important that they are driven by local authorities and their partners. That is why I cannot accept the point that Brian Monteith made about Stirling. If I understood him correctly, he suggested that the Government should dictate that Dundee be part of the Stirling city vision and that there should be a top-down approach. Rather, our approach is very much for Stirling and its surrounding partners to build their own plan for their area.

Can the minister clarify for the record what he means by Dundee being part of Stirling's city vision? Was that a typo?

It would have been helpful if Shona Robison had been here for the debate. In his opening remarks, Mr Monteith argued that Dundee should be driven by the Government to be part of the Stirling city region. Our approach is to allow the development of Stirling in the right way.

I am sorry if the minister is confused. The point that I made about Stirling and Dundee was in fact about their relationship with Perth and how Perth was concerned about missing out. Perhaps the minister missed my mentioning Perth, but my point was about the fact that Perth is sandwiched between two cities and fears that it might lose out on the munificence of the Executive.

I accept that clarification, but I was suggesting that our approach is to let the bottom drive the process, if I may put it that way, rather than have Government at the top level driving it. That approach is right in principle and is not the one that the Conservatives suggested that we are taking.

The example of Copenhagen and Malmö is important, because it illustrates in spectacular style the approach of developing city regions—and there was some criticism of our approach to city regions. Those two cities prosper, innovate and grow. That is the approach that we seek in Scotland's city regions—the partnerships should prosper, innovate and grow in a positive way.

Jeremy Purvis asked a question on market towns and I say to him that the Government will reflect on his suggestion. There are other areas and towns, including market towns, which seek solutions; that is an issue to which we will want to come back. The Government's vision is to help councils to deliver local solutions to fit local circumstances—only thus can we ensure true consistency with our partnership's ambitions for the whole country.

I will deal briefly with some other points that were raised in the debate. I recognise that Mr Monteith's approach was thoughtful and I trust that he will accept the assurances that I have given, particularly on the fact that areas will not miss out. It is not the devolved Administration's intention to allow that to happen—we will not do so and I hope that he will accept that.

I cannot consider Mr Ewing's contribution to be "ruthlessly constructive"; "toothlessly destructive" might be a better description. I commend to him Andrew Welsh's speech, which was intelligent and thoughtful. I might take issue with some of Mr Welsh's economic statistics, but I certainly do not disagree with his central point, which was that cities are drivers of economic growth. Cities drive economic growth for the whole of Scotland, not just for the city regions. Mr Welsh delivered the right speech in the right debate and I commend it to Mr Ewing for that reason.

Pauline McNeill, Robert Brown and Paul Martin raised issues about local taxation. The devolved Administration is taking forward a review of local government finance with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which will provide the opportunity to make the case that has been advocated. I think that those members would expect me to say that the Government should take a long-term perspective, so that its view does not change from day to day and so that changes that are essential for companies and businesses do not happen in a way that does not allow them to plan for the long term.

The Opposition amendments—

Let me finish my point. The Opposition amendments make three core criticisms of the Government, relating to a lack of transport infrastructure, the need for better public services and the need to put sustainability at the heart of urban policy. I have concerns about the Conservatives' criticism of us, not least because Mr Brocklebank spent some minutes telling us that he would like to cut the percentage of GDP that is spent on public services. I do not understand how he can on one hand argue for increased investment in transport infrastructure—as the Conservative amendment does—and on the other hand suggest such a cut. He does not say where the cut should be made—

Read our manifesto.

Ah, the Tory manifesto. Shall we remember the Tory manifesto? What did it say? I seem to remember that Scottish Enterprise was the main area that the Tories wanted to cut hard. We reject that position absolutely.

The Administration is investing £3 billion in transport infrastructure, 70 per cent of which will go towards public transport. I presume that the Conservatives reject that position.

On public services and sustainability, city authorities must develop their waste management plans and practices within the national waste plan. In that context, I say to Mr Ballard that that is core to what is going on and that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Mr Finnie, is taking the matter forward. It is for city authorities, just as it is for other local authorities, to develop those plans appropriately.

I pick up, in particular, the points that Susan Deacon, Margaret Smith and Sarah Boyack made about affordable housing. The Administration recognises that that is a serious issue. Edinburgh has received £3 million from the cities review, which it has chosen to allocate to key worker housing. Local authorities and registered social landlords can include key worker status among the factors that are used to decide priority for housing allocations and the City of Edinburgh Council has included those arguments in its local housing strategy, which it is discussing with Communities Scotland. I take members' points about those matters and Mr Kerr and I will certainly bring them to the attention of colleagues in the relevant departments.

I take Pauline McNeill's point about housing mix in Glasgow. The Clyde waterfront working group is seeking to find solutions that consider the housing need across the city. Susan Deacon rightly raised the problem of skills shortages—an overall theme that we seek to take forward through the work of the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department, the Executive's lifelong learning strategy and "A Smart, Successful Scotland".

It strikes me as slightly ironic that an islander should sum up a debate on Scotland's great cities. However, let me reflect a little on Scottish history. In his tome "The Scottish Nation: 1700-2000", Tom Devine writes beautifully of the architectural legacy in Scotland's cities. He notes how, on visiting Scotland in 1826, the great European architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel described the "purity and splendour" of Glasgow's architecture and he recalls the poet Hugh William Williams's recognition of Edinburgh as the Athens of the north. Devine then notes that the last major architectural project of the period was Playfair's remodelling of the Mound in the 1840s and 1850s. Indeed, that was the last major project until the Miralles project, as the Parliament might note or, indeed, pray about.

My connection is slight. The neo-Gothic might of Edinburgh's St Mary's Cathedral and the splendour of the University of Glasgow were the architectural product of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, who was my great-great-great-uncle.

I commend the Executive's motion to the chamber.