Resumed debate.

We continue this morning's debate on motion S1M-858, in the name of Wendy Alexander, on Glasgow regeneration. Given the number of members who wish to speak, even on a four-minute time limit it will not be possible to include everybody. I appeal to the opening speakers to keep well below their time limits if they can. I call Henry McLeish.

I thank Sir David for the opportunity to open the debate this afternoon. I am delighted that we are in Glasgow. It is a great place to debate the important issues that lie at the heart of the city's future.

I believe, as I am prone to do—with one exception, last week in debate with John Swinney—in trying to express the views of the Parliament. In a sense, we are talking about a huge issue today. This is a great modern city. So far, while there has been some heat and some passion, everyone seems committed to ensuring that the regeneration programme that we are embarking upon is supported. Of course, we can differ, substantially at times, on the margins of policy. Nevertheless, it is important that the Parliament speaks up loud and clear on all the issues affecting the people of Glasgow.

It is important that we take this opportunity not only to embrace the regeneration process, but to try to improve it. We acknowledge, as I hope does every other party, that there are always ways of improving what we are doing. We have embarked on a fairly formidable programme of regeneration, a process that has already been happening throughout the years. It is in the interests of Glasgow that we continue that process and that we see the benefits.

I would like to use the theme of a city with two tales: not a tale of two cities, although I want to touch upon the complementarity of Glasgow and Edinburgh at a later stage, but rather two tales from this city. In the opening sentence of "A Tale of Two Cities", Charles Dickens wrote:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".

Glasgow, as much as any other great European city, illustrates the challenging urban mix of some of the worst places and some of the best places—poverty and affluence cheek by jowl, the old set amidst the dynamic new.

This morning, Wendy Alexander told us the tale of Glasgow's poverty, the tragedy of 20 Tory years during which the social consequences of economic decline and the positive roles for enterprise and education in making new cities were ignored. Wendy Alexander has made it clear how the Executive's policies—across the range of mainstream programmes and not just special area regeneration measures—are beginning to reverse decay and to bring hope and community action to those places that need them.

What about the tragedy of 40 Labour years? Almost 300,000 people in Glasgow, and 62 per cent of children in Maryhill alone, live in poverty, so the £12.5 million announced by Ms Alexander this morning amounts to only about £40 each. That is hardly a generous gesture to this great city.

The people of Glasgow will not be saying that today, as another £12 million is invested in the future of the city. We should not get bogged down in downplaying £12 million of public funds. That announcement was made against a background of enormous investment in a wide variety of areas that affect the citizens of this great city.

Wendy Alexander also pointed out that better homes, better schools, stronger neighbourhoods and better infrastructure are critical to our aim of lasting neighbourhood regeneration. We also recognise that raising the city's economic performance, with more jobs and better income, is the only basis on which such changes can be sustained in the longer term. Some might regard the Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments' social and economic programmes for Glasgow as simple palliatives that are redistributed to Glasgow to ease the pain of a city in decline, but that is a fundamental misperception.

That view is utterly wrong, because there is a second critical tale to tell of Glasgow: the story of what Glasgow and its economy does for Scotland. Glasgow, a city with less than an eighth of the nation's population, produces a sixth of its output. It performs key roles in a range of new, and older, activities. More to the point, there is growing awareness that cities have a particular role in shaping the relationships between economy and society. Cities are the creative places in the new global economy, and if we are to compete as a nation, our cities—especially Glasgow—will have to be internally effective and creative and externally well connected. We must value and shape Glasgow for its potential creativity and connectivity, not just for Glaswegians but for all of us. The city is not a victim, and our policies are not palliatives.

Glasgow's past experience could lead us to gloomy economic analysis; indeed, for many, it has done so. Successful global processes of decentralisation of jobs and homes to the suburbs, followed by the inevitable demise of old industries, along with current lower-cost bases in emerging economies, had an earlier and deeper effect on Glasgow than on any other British city. In 1953, the city had a population of 1.2 million and 325,000 manufacturing jobs were located within its boundaries. Now there are fewer than 35,000 manufacturing jobs and the population, of course, has almost halved. By the end of Mrs Thatcher's Government, a quarter of the wards in the city had unemployment rates in excess of 30 per cent and, in council housing, only one household in three had any connection at all to the labour market. Even worse, Glasgow's empire export markets were gone, and many craft and labour skills lay redundant.

I want to concentrate now on the positive aspects that I regard as the new tale. It is easy, as new problems emerge, to forget that the city was also gaining as far as its economic base was concerned. From 1955 to 1995, Glasgow was not just a city where transport was an issue; it was a city where people were beginning to develop services and where networks could be established. Of course, Glasgow has become—as incomes have increased and general living standards have improved—a place for household consumption as much as production.

All that is reflected in how Glasgow is changing as the millennium starts. Job figures are up in contrast with 1990, with new gains at least offsetting the old decline. Indeed, since 1993, the city has gained an additional 17,500 jobs and unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent. There has been a high level of inward investment in Glasgow in recent years. In the five years to March 1999, Locate in Scotland recorded 56 investment projects, involving planned investment of £202 million, with the expectation that we can create or safeguard 7,770 jobs.

Does the minister recognise that the new jobs that have come to Glasgow have tended to be of a type that is not necessarily suitable for people who have lost employment in previous industries, where they had semi-skilled or unskilled roles? Does the Government's present strategy target adequately the skills disparity that affects those people who lost out through the decline in traditional industries?

John Swinney raises an important issue. Matching up skills from the declining industries, which may be less in demand, with newer industries can often be a problem. However, a lot of work has been done to make them match up. There is a great degree of carry-over between the skills in traditional industries and those that are required in the new industries, especially technology and engineering skills. We keep a keen eye on the issue that Mr Swinney raises.

It is also important to remember that almost £400 million has been invested in new technology companies and we have the second largest retailing centre in the UK, with robust and relatively stable property values. We also have a rapidly expanding tourist sector: there has been an increase in tourist trips of up to 40 per cent since the mid-1990s. That is encouraging, especially when we consider that this is supposed to be a city that only needs public resources. Glasgow is a vibrant city. It is winning new technology and it is winning its own future. Underpinning that is the fact that it is the second largest concentration of science and research outside London.

We could spend hours cataloguing the successes of the city, but the key issue is that Glasgow is moving forward; it is not a city in decline. Glasgow is looking for partnership to allow it to develop its potential. That reflects new drivers for change. Glasgow has a high standard of culture and good amenities. That attracts visitors and skilled labour. Glasgow has an educated work force and an innovative business and academic sector with a growing familiarity with multi-media ends and means. Cities such as Glasgow need not fear the knowledge economy: e-commerce and the internet are city-friendly. There is a new analysis and a new prospect for Glasgow and for all of our cities.

The most important part of this issue is the people of Glasgow. The policies of any party and the efficacy of any political system must be measured by their impact on the quality of life of the public. We must create a modern image for the city. People must drive forward an agenda for change. We should talk about the problems that face the city, but we should also talk up the world-class assets that the city has. We must get that balance right.

Progress has been made but there is work to do in many areas. I talked about unemployment. It is true to say that unemployment has gone down remarkably in recent years. Since 1997, youth unemployment in the city has gone down by 70 per cent. Long-term unemployment has gone down by 52 per cent since 1997. In 1984—nearly at the peak of the Tories' assault on industry—unemployment in the city stood at 25 per cent. It is now at 9 per cent and, as members will be aware, the claimant count today fell to less than 9 per cent. Employment has risen by 17,500 since 1993.

Instead of singling out the Tories for his monopolistic attack on the causes of the demise of industry, will the minister accept that there were other reasons for the demise of industry, such as demarcation, overmanning, inefficiency, lack of competitiveness and the lack of productivity that still blights this country today?

Being a reasonable man, I am willing to acknowledge that, in addition to the decimation of manufacturing industry by the Tories, there were other factors that should be borne in mind.

While unemployment has fallen dramatically, we should not forget that we are in a city where the benefits of prosperity have not always fallen equally. In 1984, wards such as Belvidere, Drumry, Kingston, Keppochill and Cowlairs had unemployment levels of more than 50 per cent. In one of those wards, the level was 67 per cent. Now, all those wards have unemployment levels of 15 per cent or 16 per cent. That is too high: it is a third higher than the Scottish average. I commit the Executive to ensuring that we have a working economy in every community.

We need to focus more intensely on linking the 15,000 to 20,000 job vacancies with the 25,000 people who are out of work. It is not easy to make a direct match, but we owe it to the unemployed to start to focus on the parts of the city that need financial investment to help people match up with available jobs. That is not talking glibly or ideologically about full employment, but giving a massive commitment to the city to do something about it—something that adds to the general reduction in unemployment over the past few years.

My second point is on tourism. John Swinney is right: the nature of Glasgow's economy is changing. The economy is changing globally; in Scotland it is changing in every city. Between 1991 and 1998 UK tourist visits to Glasgow increased by 88 per cent—that is a mean feat for a mean city, so described. The tourists seem to like it. That and the fact that international visits have increased by 25 per cent prove that Glasgow is an enormous magnet for people in this country and abroad who want to see excellence, whether in architecture, culture or the other huge attractions of the city. We are investing in that and want to work with the city in moving forward.

My third point is that we talk about manufacturing in an over-gloomy way. Of course there are difficult trading conditions around, but there are still more than 30,000 manufacturing jobs in the city, 10 per cent of the employment base. We must not write that off. Our manufacturing statement says that manufacturing matters. It is the engine room of the economy, whether in Fife, the Lothians or Glasgow. We need to make sure that the shipbuilding sector is further developed. The Executive is in discussion with Scottish Enterprise and a study is being completed of the scope for a more strategic approach to marine industries in Scotland. Representations have been made to me about centres of excellence in Glasgow in marine industries—that is under active consideration.

The fourth area is one where Glasgow can take centre stage. It is fast becoming the learning capital of Europe. Right across the board, with its three universities and 10 colleges and 160,000 students it is truly a learning capital at the heart of what I want to see as a learning nation. Learning in the city is being looked at, from graduate and post-graduate levels to the much-neglected area of literacy—an area that will now get more resources. The Glasgow learning inquiry is a unique initiative bringing together the council, the enterprise company and the universities and colleges to show that learning must underpin the significant economic developments in Glasgow. Learning will be the key to the knowledge economy and to prosperity.

I congratulate the city on such initiatives and mention one in particular—the REAL learning centres in the 32 libraries. I officially opened the first centre—it is a magnificent facility. This initiative means that at the heart of every community there is a learning facility that everyone, from the youngest to the oldest, can access when they need to and to their benefit. The city should be applauded for that.

The fifth area is the science base. The three universities in the city are excellent in their very different ways. Between them they have 14 5-rated, and of those, three 5-star-rated departments. Those ratings represent international research achievement. There is also the science enterprise challenge moneys that have been invested; the university challenge; the joint infrastructure fund; and the £75 million Glasgow science centre south of the river. That will be a major asset but, more important, it is a message to every part of the UK that this city means business for the future of the knowledge economy. Again I offer applause and congratulations to everyone involved. We have decided to put the headquarters of the Scottish university for industry in Glasgow, to complement the other things that are happening.

There are two final issues to which I will refer very quickly, Sir David, as I see you are looking at an imaginary clock on the wall behind me.

It is a real clock.

It may be real, but I cannot see it, so I am happy. [Laughter.] There are a lot of people behind me in this chamber, which is quite nerve-wracking.

We are with you.

Frank McAveety says that he is with me. I do not know whether that is a reassurance or a cause for further concern.

Glasgow has 164,000 students who attend college or university. However, there are people in our communities who cannot function because they lack basic numeracy and literacy skills. That is nothing new. The problem is crying out to be tackled, and we want to do that. Work is being undertaken in Glasgow, which the nation of Scotland can build on, and I want that to continue.

This city has many creative industries— architecture, broadcasting, media and video games—which are firmly rooted in future technology and the digital age. Glasgow is fast becoming one of the key centres of excellence for all that.

Yes, we need to modernise government and move on. Yes, we need to carry on with regeneration, to provide better homes, better schools and safer streets, and to renew the infrastructure. However, the sustainability of our efforts will be improved if there is a hard, heavy economic edge to what we do. No matter where people live—in whatever part of Glasgow or Scotland—they want to work, to have skills, to learn and to have a good quality of life. I would like to think that, today, we are celebrating all those opportunities in Glasgow.

Of course, there is much more work to be done. As an Executive we are up for it and as a Parliament we are up for it. There is a tremendous responsibility on every member to ensure that Glasgow wins through. It needs only some help. It is a great city with huge potential.

I know that the minister has received awards recently. If any awards are made at the end of this debate, he will get the award for the best line—no mean feat for "a mean city"—on the issue of tourism.

In opening this afternoon's debate for the Opposition, I shall reflect on a couple of comments that were made this morning. Some interesting remarks were made by the Conservative group, taking me rather by surprise. Bill Aitken started his contribution with an extensive demolition of the declining council tax base of the city, but struggled to explain who had been instrumental in designing that smaller council tax base—which happened to be the Conservatives, when they were in office. The guilt spread across the benches.

rose—

We debated the issue well and truly this morning.

Phil Gallie then attacked the failed economic policies of the 1960s, which were replaced by the failed economic policies of the 1980s. He was clearly nostalgic for the great Lady Thatcher, whom he even called by her first name. He conjured up an image, which was not entirely welcomed by all of us, of the beloved Margaret travelling along the Clyde, no doubt by her preferred mode of transport—on foot.

The Conservative contributions were in marked contrast to some of the more substantial points that were made in the debate. My colleague Kenny Gibson characterised the problems in Glasgow, and the minister touched on similar ground in describing Glasgow as a divided city. There has been a broad understanding of that point, which was not demonstrated by the speech from the Minister for Communities, who started off on a rather complacent note when talking about the problems that Glasgow faces. The tone of realism that Margaret Curran brought to the debate was refreshing and she showed an understanding of Glasgow's difficulties.

The SNP amendment acknowledges Glasgow's many strengths, including the combined work of economic development agencies and the shared agenda that is pursued by the Glasgow Development Agency, now known as Scottish Enterprise Glasgow, and Glasgow City Council. The subject of economic development is particularly important. The far-reaching work that those agencies are involved in, especially in partnership with the higher and further education sector, is welcomed.

The work of the local development companies in Glasgow, a number of which are trying to tackle the issues of economic dislocation in some of the peripheral housing estates and other areas of severe urban decline, has been effective in tackling some serious root problems. The way in which we tackle the deep-rooted economic problems in those communities is something that we cannot lose sight of in this debate, and I shall return to that issue in due course.

There has been a fundamental change in Glasgow's business and economic bases. Some elements of Glasgow's contribution to the Scottish economy have been robust. It is important to note that Glasgow produces more for the Scottish economy than its population might suggest. The transition of many of Glasgow's industries to new technologies has been welcome, as has the influx of new employment.

In responding to my intervention during his speech, the minister did not deal adequately with the point that I made. We must not forget that from the fundamental changes that result in industries being able to create employment comes a feeling of dislocation in those who have lost their employment. Some of those people lost their employment, which was in declining industries, a long time ago. Some of my colleagues will comment on the industries—in particular the creative industries—that are creating employment.

The higher and further education sector is an anchor for the economy of Glasgow. I was interested to talk to representatives of the University of Glasgow and Strathclyde University at lunch time and to hear their perspectives on the commercialisation of Glasgow's research base throughout various campuses. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that the amount of co-operation among higher education institutions in Glasgow is a novelty. We do not always see such co-operation. The success of Glasgow and Strathclyde universities in attracting challenge funding for a number of their projects contributes significantly to the development of commercial ideas in the research base.

We must ask ourselves whether enough is being done in all those areas. The representatives of higher and further education to whom I have talked welcome the Government's initiatives. They feel, however, that the initiatives do not go nearly far enough to turn the ideas in our academic base into the commercial realities that could create long-term employment in the city.

There are deeply important issues that we must address in the debate and they have been tackled in a number of ways. I will illustrate some of those issues. I have not heard much mention of the UK economic activity indicator in the debate. That indicator suggests that 79.6 per cent of the UK population are economically active and that 77.8 per cent in Scotland are active, but that only 64.6 per cent are economically active in Glasgow. Let us examine particular areas of Glasgow. In Drumry, 40.3 per cent of the population are economically inactive, in Summerhill 34.6 per cent are economically inactive and in North Kelvin the figure is 30.2 per cent. That must be tackled.

There are other illustrations of the problem when we examine unemployment statistics. Ministers have been intent on demonstrating how, by their measures, unemployment has declined. However, the measure that the Government used when it was in opposition indicates that unemployment is still rising. The International Labour Organisation's unemployment count shows that unemployment in Scotland rose by 10,000 in the last quarter, but that it fell in the UK as a whole by 20,000. Ministers cannot have it both ways. They give us glossy rhetoric about unemployment, but the information on which they based their campaigns when they were in opposition—and on which I am sure the leader of the Liberal party in London still bases his opposition—still indicates the true pattern of activity.

I would like to make two points. We publish the claimant count and the ILO figures—that is a step forward from the days of the previous Government. Does John Swinney accept that, if the claimant count was used as a consistent measure in the 16 years going back to 1984, we would see that, in that year, the claimant count was 25 per cent and that it is now 9 per cent? Surely that suggests to John Swinney that there has been a real improvement.

It depends what one includes in the equation. Economic inactivity is a key indicator in the assessment of the country's true position. Relative comparisons with 16 years ago are important, but what matters is what is happening now in relation to previous quarters. We are judging and debating the lives that people live today.

Kenny Gibson's important points about population decline show that Glasgow is wrestling with challenges about the deterioration of its population base. Some of the other issues that Mr McLeish raised, particularly his comments on adult literacy earlier in the week, cause deep concern about the ability of large groups of the population to gain access to the labour market because of their inherent lack of skills. If there was ever a case for lifelong learning, the literacy figures quoted so starkly by the Daily Record on Monday illustrate the depth of the problem that must be tackled.

Let us start the debate about the future of Glasgow and the regeneration of the city from an honest reflection on past performance. We do not need any spin on the past. What we need is honest reflection and real analysis of the issues that concern us all.

A couple of years ago, Glasgow City Council assessed the performance of its regeneration policy. After £500 million had been invested in regeneration activity over a 10-year period, it found that the areas that were poorest in 1988 remained the poorest areas in 1998. That is why the SNP amendment calls for a reflection on the regeneration strategy, to guarantee that we get the strategy absolutely right for tackling the areas affected by those deep, endemic problems.

We all want to tackle and solve those problems speedily and in a sustained way, but we must have confidence in the mechanisms and measures by which we aim to achieve that transition. The analysis of expenditure of large sums of money over the past 10 years does not provide a good model for how expenditure should be sustained over the next 10 years.

I was struck by the written submission that the Glasgow Development Agency made to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. It said of social exclusion:

"Glasgow needs to create new jobs if it is to make lasting inroads into these issues. The evidence over the past five years shows that the city can create employment but Glasgow's residents, for various interrelated reasons, are not getting the full benefit. The evidence tends to show that less than half of new jobs go to Glaswegians and that on current trends the share is expected to decrease."

We all agree that getting people into employment is the way to solve many of those deep social problems, but the evidence does not show that we are succeeding in getting people into employment and enabling them to take part in sustained employment to solve those difficulties.

Although Mr Swinney talks about getting people into employment, does he agree that it is important to stress that work in and of itself is not a route out of poverty unless it is well-paid employment? Does he agree that we cannot simply turn the unemployed poor into the employed poor?

I agree unreservedly with Tommy Sheridan. We must create a sustainable society that allows people to have a different lifestyle from the life that they have just now and to get out of the endemic poverty that many people have suffered. He and I have met constituents who have experienced only a marginal difference by going from unemployment to employment. Unless that gap is tackled, the problem will never be solved in full. There is evidence that prosperity in Glasgow is rising and that new opportunities exist. The issue is whether those opportunities truly touch the people who live here and whether they are involved in that process of renewal. We are not hearing much evidence that that is the case.

We must examine the way in which the labour market is stimulated in the city of Glasgow. To do that, we must look at the wider context. The minister mentioned the United Kingdom and the global context. We cannot ignore the fact that we have serious competitive disadvantages because of the way in which the economy is currently structured and because of the way in which macro-economic decisions are taken. We cannot expect manufacturing employment to be sustained or to rise in Glasgow or in any other part of Scotland with the burden of interest rates that we currently carry.

I was intrigued that the issue of interest rates and their relationship to the currency markets and to the euro was given fresh life yesterday by the intervention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who called for a swifter time scale on the euro. He came to the rescue of the Minister for Rural Affairs, who made bold and courageous comments in Brussels last week about the need for a stable and competitive climate. I am glad that that is going down so well on the Opposition Liberal Democrat benches. I am not sure that it is going down so well on the Government Liberal Democrat benches, but I suspect that subsequent contributions will prove me correct.

We have an understanding that issues such as interest rates and exchange rates have an impact on the ability to sustain a credible manufacturing base. Henry McLeish quite rightly says that manufacturing matters. I have read the strategies and manufacturing does matter, but we are an export-focused community. We have been put at a competitive disadvantage because of the level of interest rates and the inability of our key companies to compete. A number of my colleagues this morning made practical suggestions, and more will do so this afternoon, about how the regeneration strategy can be taken forward.

Ministers have confirmed remarks that have been made in the debate that 25 per cent of Scotland's derelict land is retained within Glasgow. Part of the Government's regeneration strategy must be to tackle that, to improve the location, to improve the environment and to improve the ability of companies to find locations and establish their bases in this community.

We must also effectively target those who are disfranchised from employment and from taking part in the labour market. Until we bridge the gap between the opportunities that exist and the people who live here who need to get those opportunities, the Government's regeneration strategy will be the talk that we have heard today and not enough of the action that the people of Glasgow require.

I listened with interest this morning to Des McNulty—not many of us have ever been able to say that—as he made a number of excellent points about the economic circumstances that Glasgow has faced in the past 30 or 40 years.

Des referred to the deep-seated economic and social difficulties of west central Scotland. He placed Glasgow firmly in its context as a conurbation, not as a community in isolation. He talked about the remarkable degree of continuity that has existed throughout those decades, in referring to what he called the remarkable achievements of the health board, the enterprise agencies—which were of course agents of central Government—and the local council in doing a considerable level of work and enjoying a considerable degree of success across the decades with which he was familiar as a Strathclyde regional councillor. That is a telling point.

Henry McLeish presented everything as novel; initiatives that began in 1997 and trends that started in 1997. However, that is not correct; the facets of Glasgow's success the minister has been anxious to build on go back far deeper in time. He talked about Glasgow's success in retailing and tourism. He talked about Glasgow's success in attracting technology and developing its universities.

Those developments, trends, innovations and investments long pre-date 1997. The minister, in making comparisons directly with the situation in 1993, gave the lie to much of the cheaper rhetoric of his speech.

I thank Murray Tosh for his positive comments. Will he comment on the £150 million that Glasgow lost immediately following reorganisation as a result of the financial settlement by the Conservative Government at that time, and the consequences of that for Glasgow in the past three or four years?

I am concerned at the evidence that was brought before Parliament recently by Professor Midwinter, which shows that local government in Scotland is losing around £100 million per year. That is a problem that faces every council. It is a real problem of this devolved Scotland. We debated the issue last week and I did not hear members of the Executive offer any counter-evidence. I have heard questions about the economics of this issue being put to Jack McConnell and I have heard Jack McConnell do nothing but evade those questions. The Executive is peddling a lie to the Scottish community about the funding of local government.

I would like to make a significant comment on one of the areas of discontinuity in the way the Scottish economy is being handled. This morning, I looked at a briefing the Confederation of British Industry gave us recently. It picked out five factors that are central to Scotland's economic success. Right in the middle of the list was transport and logistics. I thought it most significant that the minister who opened this afternoon's debate did not mention transport and logistics—as if our manufacturing can flourish at the end of one of the longest transport corridors in western Europe without it.

The previous, maligned Tory Government spent a decade or more developing a long motorway from England, our principal market, and from the European mainland, our next most important market. Where has it been allowed to stop? It has been allowed to stop in the east of Glasgow. I know perfectly well that virtually every Labour member in this chamber is as concerned as we are about the implications of that. For modern manufacturing and service industries, reliability and quick delivery are increasingly important. We in Scotland are at the end of a very long communications chain. How are we to survive if we do not have the facility to move our goods to the market for which they are intended when that market wants those goods?

I pay tribute to the minister for the positive things he said. How can we translate those imperatives into reality unless we deal with infrastructure?

How does that square with the fact that, when they were in power, the Tories sidelined and put into the backwoods all the roads for which a demand was building up? From what the member is saying, one would think that the Conservatives were never in power and never had the chance to build roads.

I was under the impression that in the past 20 years we developed very extensive motorway networks in Scotland. If anyone who has travelled the old A74 and the motorway does not notice the difference and does not realise the significance of it, they should talk to the chambers of commerce, the CBI and council leaders such as Charlie Gordon about the significance of the motorway network to this city and the wider region.

Scotland's most significant and successful exporting area is Renfrewshire. Scotland's second most significant exporting area is Ayrshire. Both are on the wrong side of the central Glasgow congestion bottleneck. The industries that are based there are concerned about their long-term development programmes and investment strategies because they see themselves as increasingly at the wrong end of Glasgow's congestion. They want motorway connections and they want the M74 to progress.

What has the Executive done? It has stopped a long, unfolding process of investment and referred the matter to local councils. The Minister for Transport and the Environment has told the leaders of the three councils involved that they can progress the scheme under the legislation that allows local authorities to toll motorways. Local government leaders do not believe that that is practical. They do not think that the M74 can be tolled in isolation; they believe that they would have to toll the entire central Scotland motorway network, diverting stacks of traffic to side streets in the process.

indicated disagreement.

The member should talk to the council leaders; I have.

So have I.

They are considering using the proposed powers to impose car parking charges, but they are not confident that they will be able to raise the necessary sums of money. They reckon that they may be able to realise half the money that might be needed to fund a PFI scheme to develop the motorway. Where will the other half come from? What level of charges will have to be imposed? Who knows—and who can know—what the impact of significant parking charges will be on the supply of parking? With such risk and uncertainty, what private financier will put the necessary level of investment into developing a motorway costing £200 million within that time scale? Without the Executive to underwrite it, it is an unrealistic, unfair and negative proposal.

I hope that Murray Tosh will not mislead the chamber—I am sure that that is not his intention. The Executive does not intend to have motorway tolling, because the Liberal Democrats have ensured that that will not occur.

I often think that Mr Rumbles has a peculiar view of the role the Liberal Democrats play in the coalition. If he wants to know how important their input is, he should read Wendy Alexander's speech from this morning to see how many references there were to the Liberal Democrats.

Does Mr Tosh accept my point?

No, I do not. Mr Rumbles is wrong. There are two types of motorway tolling: there is the type that the Executive proposed last summer, and then abandoned; and there is the specific power that allows a local authority—or, indeed, any private sector operator with a licence—to develop a motorway and toll for it. The minister has put precisely that proposal to Glasgow City Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Renfrewshire Council. If Mike Rumbles does not believe me, he should go and ask the council leaders and they will confirm what I am saying.

How long do I have left, Sir David?

Two minutes.

It is a pity about the content.

I am sorry Mr Rumbles feels that it is a pity about the content; I cannot think of anything that is much more important than transport infrastructure. Any member who has talked seriously to anybody in economic development, industry or commerce will have heard about the importance of the M74 both in connecting our manufacturers to their markets and, critically—I take John Swinney's point—in releasing derelict land and reclaiming brown-field sites.

Where is the merit in the Executive suggesting—as it has done to Glasgow City Council—that to save money and make the scheme more affordable, it should scale down the M74 and cut out the connections between Cambuslang and the Kingston bridge? If that happens, the brown-field land will still be sterilised and when the council goes to the European Community for the 25 per cent funding that will be an important part of the financial jigsaw, it will lose that grant assistance through not having proposed the connecting up of the brown-field land.

Much of this debate is about planning and joining up all the loose ends. It is about creating the physical connections and the policy connections. The Executive has ambitions to improve the education base and the skills base and to achieve better outputs—goals that all of us share—but if it does not have a commitment to the strategic infrastructure it will not achieve the ends it holds so dear.

Many Labour members have been part of the lobbying process for the motorway.

rose—

I am sorry, but I think I have to finish.

He is on his last minute.

The Parliament and the Executive have let the matter drift. It has drifted since 1997. For the sake of the economy of Glasgow and the west of Scotland, it has to be put back on the agenda. The council has been asked to do something that it does not have the resources to achieve. The Executive and the Parliament must impose the strategic vision, provide the financial and logistical support and fill the gap in the strategy that the Executive has set out this afternoon.

I welcome the Scottish Executive's decision to have this debate today, to draw attention to the serious challenges that face the city of Glasgow. It is appropriate that, on our first day in Glasgow, we are discussing some of the real problems that face the city.

Members may accuse me of west coast bias, or it may be that I am weary from constant travelling between Bute and Edinburgh, but as we bring the Parliament to Glasgow for these few weeks I cannot help but think that a regenerative opportunity has been missed and that Glasgow would have provided an imaginative and successful permanent home for our Parliament. We must ensure that when civil service jobs are dispersed throughout the country, Glasgow attracts its fair share—that would go a long way towards helping the city.

As the MSP for Argyll and Bute, I am well aware that a prosperous and successful Glasgow brings prosperity and opportunities to all of the west coast of Scotland. The regeneration of the city brings a renaissance that provides life-blood to economies along the length of the Clyde. Ask any hotelier on Bute, any publican in Dunoon or any restaurateur in Oban, and we are left in no doubt that a vibrant Glasgow means a vibrant Scotland—and a vibrant Argyll and Bute, which is important.

We have heard many statistics about the economic and social problems that beset the city. Less than 10 per cent of Glasgow's employment remains in manufacturing, which is a sad indictment of the decades of neglect and lost opportunities that Murray Tosh has conveniently forgotten.

Glasgow lags well behind in new businesses, with a start-up rate that is half the Scottish average and barely a third of that of the south-east of England in the 1980s and 1990s. The city has lost 21 per cent of its jobs since 1971, unemployment is persistently higher than in the rest of the country and more people—some 74,000—are on incapacity benefits than in any other district in Britain. Social and economic problems are borne on our shoulders—the shoulders of the politicians who failed our greatest city during the past 20 years.

This morning, Margaret Smith referred to the 1977 white paper "Policy For The Inner Cities", which stated clearly that

"extra effort was required in Glasgow, in view of the exceptional scale and severity of the problems in that city".

What happened during the past 20 years? It is to our shame that so many years were wasted. Peter Lilley's grotesque view, that poverty no longer existed because people no longer starved on the streets and children were no longer sent up chimneys, only served to highlight the paucity of vision and the absence of human charity that characterised the 18 wasted Tory years.

The people of Scotland voted to create this Parliament so that the evils of unfettered Tory rule would never again be foisted upon us. As Murray Tosh so ably demonstrated, the chaos and darkness before 1997 appears to have been obliterated from the memory of every Tory member.

If the Tories are so evil, why are the Liberal Democrats in coalition with them in East Dunbartonshire Council and Perth and Kinross Council?

I could ask the SNP the same question about Argyll and Bute Council.

Solutions require positive action and joined-up ideas. That is why the Executive's manufacturing strategy, "Created in Scotland", put our money where our priorities are. The strategy will ensure that the expertise and cutting edge of the research that is taking place in Glasgow's universities will mean jobs for the city through the commercial exploitation of our knowledge. Developing that strategy in Scotland means exploiting our knowledge base.

I realise that some of George Lyon's speech is knockabout, but a central part of it is about knocking the record of the Tory Government. Can he conceive of the possibility that the universities and the technological expansion that he talked about, the growth in tourism and initiatives such as the retailing conference that the minister talked about, date back some considerable time before 1997? Does he agree that so many of this afternoon's speeches are prejudicial hot air?

If we were to look back before 1997, we would remember the deepest recession the UK has experienced, which took place in 1992; we would remember that the Tory Government spent some £10 billion to £15 billion trying to defend the pound before it was ejected from the European exchange rate mechanism. Those are memories that linger in the minds of the Scottish people.

We welcome the work of the Glasgow alliance. We recognise that the problems of health, housing poverty and unemployment are different sides of the same coin. It is right to point to the positive achievements of and opportunities available to Glasgow. During the 1990s, 62 inward investors created 13,000 jobs. With 59 call centres, Glasgow is the call centre capital of the UK. There are more than 2 million visitors annually to the greater Glasgow area, sustaining 47,000 jobs.

Greater Glasgow produces 34 per cent of Scotland's gross domestic product, which is a remarkable figure for any city. Furthermore, the US journal Fortune has ranked Glasgow the third best city in Europe for business environment, quality of life and labour quality. Glasgow has many positive aspects and strengths on which we can reflect as it faces up to future challenges.

Robert Brown referred to Glasgow as a tale of two cities. There can be no clearer illustration of that than the poverty of hope and ambition among the city's young people. Glasgow is an academic city of international repute. Its three universities and 10 colleges are centres of excellence in teaching and learning and the University of Glasgow is in the top rank of UK research institutions. With a student population of almost 100,000, Glasgow is the second largest student city outside London, beating Edinburgh by a long, long way.

However, as we have already heard, the rate of entry to higher education among school leavers in Glasgow is 16 per cent lower than the Scottish average. That cannot continue. I am sure that the Executive's approach—through the expansion of further and higher education, the abolition of tuition fees and the reintroduction of the £2,000 annual maintenance grant—will go a long way towards tackling the problems of representation at our universities and colleges by students from the poorer parts of Glasgow.

When Glasgow was the second city of the empire, all Scotland and Britain shared in its wealth and was reflected in its success.

Will George Lyon give way?

No, I am just about to finish.

Today, one fact remains true: a successful Glasgow means a successful Scotland. If the Executive can make it for Glasgow, it will make it for the whole of Scotland. I support the motion.

We now come to the open debate. Speeches will be limited to four minutes. I should remind members that the clocks on the side of the chamber are not stop-clocks, so they will have to pay attention to the time they start and add four minutes.

I feel that I have to comment on the structure of this debate. It is unfortunate that we have started this afternoon's session with yet more statements from front-bench spokespersons, which has limited the ability of back-bench MSPs to contribute to the debate. [Applause.]

As the old Tories are becoming as politically extinct and irrelevant in Glasgow as the dodo, I intend to ignore their deplorable and pathetic record. Instead, I want to concentrate on the role of the new Tories. When Wendy Alexander spoke this morning—it is a pity she is not here this afternoon—she referred to the city of Glasgow's loyalty to Labour and that being why Labour is determined to deliver for the city. At that point I could see some uncomfortable fidgeting among the minor partners of the coalition, who were obviously not included in that statement.

I want to examine the loyalty Wendy Alexander mentioned. It applies not just to the first year of the Scottish Parliament, but to the past three years of the Westminster Parliament—which have been three years of betrayal of that same loyalty. Three years ago, we were told that Glasgow would be made a special case if the city returned Labour MPs. That pledge has resulted in the further deterioration of the city's housing stock and an increase in poverty among the city's children. In April 1997, 38 per cent of schoolchildren received free school meals, which was a disgraceful legacy from the old Tories; by the end of 1999, that figure had risen to 43 per cent, which means that there has been a 5 per cent increase in poverty.

If Mr Sheridan analyses the increase in the take-up of school meals, he will realise that it is nothing to do with an increase in poverty, which is the line that he has peddled in the past year, but because a Labour-controlled council identified that take-up was an issue and advertised it in such a way that children would not be stigmatised. Through improving the quality of the school meals service, the council encouraged youngsters to use a high-quality school meals service instead of going to private operators outside schools. Rather than peddling that line, Mr Sheridan should get the facts on the table and address that point.

By his own words, Mr McAveety condemns himself. He tells us that the increase is the result of a Labour council realising that take-up was a problem. The Labour party has run the council for 50 years; why did it not realise that take-up was a problem then? Why has it waited until the past two years to realise that?

rose—

I have given way to Mr McAveety already. He will probably have longer to speak this afternoon, so I hope he will not mind sitting down and letting me get on. I know that it is uncomfortable for him to hear this.

Wendy Alexander tells us that she will give the city an extra £12.5 million. She could take this blue biro and give us another £20 million without costing the Executive a penny—if she would only change the capital receipt clawback rule, which is what Labour in opposition before 1997 said it would do. Wendy Alexander's refusal to do that cost Glasgow £20 million last year, and Labour's refusal to do it in the past three years has cost us £60 million.

If Wendy Alexander had announced that, in line with what the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and this city have asked for, we would be allowed to keep our business rate rather than hand it back to be pooled throughout Scotland, this city would be £64 million better off.

It is important that we do not just make criticisms, but make suggestions. That is why I hope the Executive will consider scrapping what has become the most unfair piece of taxation since the poll tax—the council tax. It is completely unfair and forces the burden of paying for local government services and jobs on to the poor rather than those who have the ability to pay. That is why the Scottish service tax would offer a solution to some of Glasgow's major problems. It would increase the disposable income of everyone in this city with an income of less than £10,000 a year—our pensioners and our low-paid workers.

You need to close now.

I ask members to remember that what Labour has announced is a pathetic amount in comparison with the problems that this city is confronting. Labour must defend a record of not one year, but three years—three years of letting down the people of Glasgow.

Since I was elected last May, I have been proud to take every opportunity to make the case for Glasgow while I have been in Edinburgh. I am prouder still today to make the case for Glasgow in Glasgow.

I understand that some people think that this is old news—old hat and a rehashing of old debates. The case of Glasgow is worthy of repetition. It is essential that we find solutions to Glasgow's problems. Tommy Sheridan suggested that the debate be focused on new Tories, or on people who disregard the easy solutions that are offered to us. That is an insult to those of us who strive to represent our constituents and other people in this city who want to solve Glasgow's problems. We are not looking for easy headlines or for saviours in Glasgow; we are looking for solutions.

This visit is a symbolic shift of power from Edinburgh to Glasgow. We want that to be backed up by a shift of Government jobs to Glasgow so that Glasgow, which had the highest turnout and the highest yes vote in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, should enjoy not only the democratic dividend but the economic dividend of the creation of the Parliament.

As I have argued before, Scotland needs to take ownership of Glasgow's problems. After all, Scotland has benefited over centuries from the wealth that has been generated by Glasgow and by Glaswegians, by the sweat of their brow. We are claiming Glasgow's just reward.

Part of the willingness to take responsibility for Glasgow is encompassed in the proposals for housing, as a part of which Glasgow's debt will be lifted from the backs of the tenants and redistributed to taxpayers generally. That is a responsibility that we should welcome.

I want to underline the case for metropolitan status for Glasgow and the need for a fair deal for the city. We know that there is an issue about people from outwith the city boundaries coming into the city to work yet not contributing to the city's sustenance. We know that Glasgow plays a crucial role in the national and cultural life of Scotland, from international football matches to the women's 10k that some of us ran at the weekend. Glasgow supports and sustains Scotland, but it does not have national resources to do so.

We must acknowledge Glasgow's fair case. I welcome the opening of the debate on a proper definition of need. Several members have talked about joblessness and the importance of employment strategies. They are important, but we must also acknowledge the consequences of joblessness for communities in relation to the impact on families, the drugs problem and the increase in crime. Those consequences will not be addressed just by creating jobs, no matter how important that is. An essential part of our social inclusion strategy is that we recognise it as an economic and social process. We must acknowledge the density of problems in Glasgow as well as the level of need.

This morning, Phil Gallie said that 20 years of the Tories represented Tory regeneration of the city. That is Humpty-Dumpty world, where words mean what people want them to mean. If Tory regeneration means presiding over record levels of unemployment, the collapse of manufacturing industry and unimaginable levels of poverty, heaven preserve us from the Tories re-emerging from their dodo status—as described by Tommy Sheridan. However, it is significant that there are more people in Glasgow who support the Tories than support Mr Sheridan's party.

I want to acknowledge the role played by Glasgow City Council over the past 20 years. In the blame game, much has been said about Glasgow councillors and what they have done for Glasgow. We should acknowledge the role that they played throughout the 1980s in protecting the citizens of Glasgow. The worked with local people to preserve their communities. We should congratulate the Scottish Executive on working to empower the local authority and activists in working together in partnership to deliver real change in Glasgow.

It is essential that the regeneration strategy does not have too narrow a focus. We have to create benefits for all the citizens of Glasgow. We must remember that those citizens include our black and ethnic minority communities; we must also meet the needs of women. I welcome a strategy that includes thematic social inclusion partnerships that acknowledge the needs of the most excluded. The Glasgow Anti-Racist Alliance, the groundbreaking work on supporting care leavers and the routes out of prostitution initiative are all crucial to our community.

It is essential that we develop a realistic regeneration strategy that meets real needs. For example, Pollok has been excluded from the new assisted areas map because it does not fit a pre-defined pattern. Despite the significant industrial opportunities in the area and the creation of the M77, it has been excluded from the map—although prosperous parts of the city are included. I urge the minister to bring his influence to bear in changing that. If that is the result of a pre-defined process, it is clear that there is something wrong with the process.

I welcome the steps the Executive has taken. Glasgow MSPs in particular are holding the Executive to account. Through partnership we can make a real difference to the future of Glasgow.

I am pleased to be debating in Glasgow. As a Lothians MSP, I acknowledge that Glasgow's problems are Scotland's problems.

When I saw today's headlines announcing £12.5 million for Glasgow, I thought that it was a drop in the ocean, although it is needed and therefore welcome. However, I checked my records and discovered that on 25 February 1999, the very same £12.5 million was announced by the minister at the time, Calum Macdonald. What breathtaking arrogance it is for the minister, on the first day that the Scottish Parliament meets in Glasgow, to make an announcement that was already made last year by Calum Macdonald. The headlines in the Evening Times are an absolute scandal. I want the Minister for Communities to return to the chamber today and to admit it if that was a re-announcement.

Come on—answer. It is a very serious challenge.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your assistance. In the light of what Ms Hyslop has said, is there any way in which we can get the Minister for Communities to return to the chamber to explain why she appears to have misled the Parliament this morning?

That is not a point of order, but I would expect the point to be addressed in the winding-up speeches. Please continue, Ms Hyslop.

It would help if the Minister for Communities was listening to the Presiding Officer.

Perhaps I might take an intervention from her deputy, who happened to be in Glasgow City Council when there was the first opportunity to announce the £12.5 million.

Will Mr McAveety take the opportunity to tell me that this is not a re-announcement?

I am delighted that we are now breaking new ground in parliamentary protocol, when the person speaking invites interventions.

Answer the question.

You have chosen to respond, minister.

I am just drawing attention to the unorthodox reason for my intervention. I would be happy to deal with the point in winding up. As SNP members are keen to hear a response, however, the facts should enlighten Ms Hyslop.

Today's announcement was the outcome of the new housing partnership steering group. The steering group has been dedicated to examining all applications that have been put forward. Because we want a correct, accurate and full assessment of how that money integrates with the long-term agenda, particularly the stock— [Interruption.] I would like to conclude my response, as SNP members requested one, Presiding Officer.

Yes, that is reasonable.

This is connected to the other issue that the SNP has been ignoring in most of its contributions today: the overall stock transfer proposal in Glasgow. It is about ensuring that any investment has at least some relationship with long-term development. That is called joined-up government, joined-up policy and good delivery.

There we have it—it is the same announcement. The same—

Ms Hyslop, if you would allow me—

Same announcement.

Same announcement.

Order. If you would allow me, Ms Hyslop. You asked for a response; you have received a response; and there is a promise that the point will be addressed later. I ask you to continue.

Here is the minister.

The minister arrives.

That was the same announcement, but it took 15 months to come up with the proposal for where the money should go.

I will take the opportunity of looking at the stock transfer proposals. We are now into the fourth year of a project which, having been dreamed up by Raymond Robertson, reinvented by Malcolm Chisholm, passed on to the said Calum Macdonald and taken over by Wendy Alexander, is in danger of surviving more ministers than Fidel Castro has survived American Presidents.

In the middle of all that drift and dither, there is no investment in Glasgow. In 1996-97, the last year of the Tory Administration, the city had borrowing consents of £78 million; that figure is now down to £46 million. That is more than £30 million less than what the Tories gave, and the Tories were never friends of Glasgow.

By my estimate, if the Minister for Communities can create a minor miracle and manages to get to a ballot in the spring or summer of 2001, and provided that the tenants vote in that ballot, investment will start in 2002-03, six years after Labour was elected to government. That is six years of stalled investment in Glasgow and six years when the tenants have not had the benefit—

Will Ms Hyslop give way?

I am sorry, but I took a lengthy intervention earlier. Some tenants in Glasgow—

rose—

The minister should have been here.

Some tenants— [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I have already taken an intervention.

Some tenants in Glasgow will have to wait 15 years after the initial promise to renovate their homes. For those who are interested in mental arithmetic, had Glasgow City Council been allowed to maintain a borrowing consent of £78 million, it would have been able to complete a package of £1.2 billion of investment over the same period—to 2012.

Will Ms Hyslop give way?

I am very conscious of time, and I want to wind up.

Where was she?

Where was she? [Interruption.]

Order.

If the coalition is serious about empowering tenants, and if its proposals are so good, it should not shy away from giving them the choice to stay with the council. If the coalition is serious about the investment, it should start the investment programme now, not in two years' time.

I believe that Fiona Hyslop named me in her speech. Presiding Officer, I am anxious to clarify the point that she makes, but I am not clear about whether, if she has named me, I should have the opportunity to respond— [Interruption.]

Order.

rose

—

Is this the same point of order?

While you are contemplating the point of order raised by Ms Alexander, perhaps you could consider whether it is appropriate for ministers to nip in and out of debates and not to listen to the legitimate points of view that are being expressed in the chamber.

That is not a point of order— [Interruption.] Order. It is up to the member to decide whether she takes an intervention. She invited comment from Mr McAveety—he was allowed to respond. A pledge was given that the point would be covered later. The chamber will make its judgment. Ms Hyslop has a minute to wind up.

I am conscious of time. I shall take an intervention from Ms Alexander, to see whether, like Frank McAveety, she says that it is the same announcement.

The key change that we are making to Glasgow housing is that, in future, decisions will be up to the tenants. As Fiona Hyslop knows, £330 million—receipts from council house sales in England—was given to Scotland by the Government. A sum was set aside for Glasgow and it was decided that, until the decision had been made that the tenants would lead on the way in which we invested in the city, no money would be released. Yesterday, the steering group said that the money should come to the city.

Fiona Hyslop says that we should spend the money in the same way in which the council did. Is she really saying that there were no difficulties attached to the way in which the council spent the money and that we should not go for community ownership and tenant leadership?

In view of the long interventions, you now have two minutes to wind up.

I think that the minister has admitted that it is the same money and that it is not new money.

We want Glasgow to flourish and we want investment in Glasgow, but there are a variety of ways in which that can be done. It does not have to be in one leap, one bound, one ballot, one mass stock transfer. There are other ways to get investment into Glasgow.

Will the member give way?

I am concluding.

The regeneration of Glasgow's crumbling public stock is a priority. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Glasgow has many monuments to past, big-bang solutions. Before we add to that list, let us stand back and take a long, hard look at what is proposed. What we do not need is a housing minister who comes to this city with second-hand announcements and hollow promises.

As a Glasgow MSP, I should be glad that we can generate this level of passion about a subject that is dear to my heart. However, I would like a bit more light and a lot less heat to be cast on the debate.

Glasgow, as others have said, is a city of contrast. On the one hand, it is a vibrant, exciting city to live in, but on the other hand, it is a city of great poverty and deprivation. That is the challenge that the Parliament and its members—whether or not we are Glaswegians—have to face.

I had been going to say that the gall of Bill Aitken never ceases to amaze me, but Bill was followed in quick succession by Phil Gallie and Murray Tosh. It is probably fairer just to say that the gall of the Tory group never fails to amaze me. It tries to claim credit for initiatives that happened in Glasgow during the troubled 1980s when Mrs Thatcher was in power, and at the same time tries to rubbish the city council in Glasgow.

I am proud of Glasgow's council during that period, because it was that council—and Strathclyde Regional Council—that protected the citizens of this city from many of the outrages perpetrated on it by Mrs Thatcher and her Government. The Tories might forget that, but I can assure them that members on the coalition benches and the citizens of Glasgow will never forget it.

Bill Aitken was right about one thing: the number of Glaswegians who move out of the city and the number of jobs that are taken up by people who live outwith its boundaries.

I agree completely with my colleague, Johann Lamont, who called for consideration of metropolitan status for Glasgow.

Bill Aitken was quick to disregard the idea—

On a point of order.

I call John Young on a point of order.

It is a point of intervention.

Oh. Briefly, then.

Does Patricia Ferguson agree that none of the Labour councillors, in Eastwood, East Kilbride, Bearsden, or anywhere else, wishes to come into Glasgow? Owen Taylor has said that he will fight to the death to block such a move. Does she accept that bringing in more council tax payers would not assist Glasgow's financial situation, because there would be expenditure in all those areas as well?

No, but John Young intervened at the right time—and I thought he would know that it is Ms Ferguson, not Mrs.

The point I was about to make, first, was that it is no good trying to gerrymander council boundaries to create Tory fiefdoms. People do not believe that any more. It did not work for the Tories in 1997, or in 1999, so perhaps the Tories will have to think again about what to do next time. Secondly, it is not about putting up a wall around Glasgow and asking for people's passports when they enter the city, but it is about ensuring that people who use Glasgow's services contribute towards providing those services. That is very different from gerrymandering the boundaries.

Bill Aitken's point about people moving out of Glasgow is genuine. That is why the Glasgow alliance has produced ambitious plans, in partnership with Glasgow City Council, to try to sustain our city's existing communities and halt the move to the suburbs. It is not just the peripheral estates, about which we have heard a lot today, that need to be bolstered. Many areas in my constituency are not peripheral estates, but are pre-war estates that have come to the end of their life, as far as housing is concerned. They need to be redeveloped and their people need to be given confidence and the ability to take up the employment that is now becoming available rapidly. We must remember that that can be achieved only through partnership. It could not be achieved in the 1980s because we did not have partnership; we had the councils fighting for their people, working with the community groups, but we did not have the support of central Government to sustain many of those developments.

Many community groups function to support the communities in partnership with the councils and the development agencies. I recognise the good and hard work that is done by many of our community organisations, especially the social inclusion partnership work that is going on in many areas of the city.

Many members still want to speak, and I would like to hear a lot of them, but I want to mention one further point. Over the years—in fact, during the debate today—Glasgow has been called many things. It was called a mean city, but I like to remember Glasgow as the friendly city. I mention that specific title because, all through the years, Glasgow—in spite of its problems—and its people have put out a hand of welcome to those who have suffered oppression overseas and felt the need to escape from that oppression. Those people have always been welcome in Glasgow and have brought with them skills and diversity that have made the city what it is today. At a time when refugees are coming into our city, and some people are not recognising the contribution that those refugees make, it is important that the Parliament and the city recognise the achievement that the refugees will no doubt bring. We welcome them, and we hope that they, too, find Glasgow to be the friendly city that those of us who have lived here all our days know it to be.

I am delighted to be speaking in a debate at the place where the Parliament should have made its temporary home before its eventual relocation.

Glasgow is a name that conjures up a variety of associations. Perhaps members are fed up with hearing the references to Glasgow as the second city of the empire, but it was also the home of the Glasgow Empire, where many an entertainer made a fight-or-flight appearance—long before my time, of course. The garden festival was held in Glasgow, on the other side of the river. Glasgow has also been city of architecture, just last year, and city of culture. What a feast of entertainment to suit all tastes we had then—Pavarotti, Sinatra making a long-awaited return visit, and Michael Jackson. We have culture coming out of our ears.

Mr Lyon—the man who put the moan into sanctimonious—should note that those initiatives date from Conservative years. But there is more to come, with football stadium events. Who knows? Mike Tyson could even be an attraction. In particular, I am looking forward to the Tina Turner concert.

Will the member give way?

Certainly. I know what Dorothy-Grace Elder is going to say.

I am sorry, but many of us do not think that Mike Tyson is an attraction, we do not think that he should be allowed to perform in the new national stadium and we do not think that Jack Straw should have the right to admit this convicted rapist to Scotland. Jack Straw should keep his nose out of it. Such issues should be decided by this Parliament.

I am on the same wavelength as Dorothy-Grace Elder. I do not think that he should be allowed to perform in the national stadium either. I will return to a more entertaining aspect of the stadium events: Tina Turner is coming to town. Even she would have difficulty out-singing the home support, but I know little of such things either.

Why would people not want to come here? As Patricia Ferguson pointed out, Glasgow is the friendly city. However, there are other connotations with the name Glasgow. "No Mean City" was mentioned. Glasgow, where 8,500 heroin addicts cost the city £200 million in crime and loss to the economy. Glasgow, where the number of drug-related offences in 1998 stood at 8,224. Glasgow, with its estimated 1,000 prostitutes working street corners, alleyways and cars—and I note at this point that Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran commented on women. Glasgow's population is characterised by poor educational attainment, haphazard drug abuse, unemployment, poor physical health, poverty and social exclusion. That description is courtesy of Kate Donegan, the governor of HM establishment Cornton Vale.

Last Monday, I attended a conference of the Scottish Association for the Study of Delinquency. Appropriately enough, the conference took place in the headquarters of Strathclyde police, just across the road. I heard that, in 1995, 743 women were convicted of offences relating to prostitution. Of those, 96 were from Aberdeen, five were from Edinburgh and a massive 642 were from Glasgow. That provides an interesting comparison with our capital city. Ms Donegan went on to advise that, in 1997, 198 women who were working as prostitutes, principally to fund drug habits, were received for fine defaults. I make no comment on how those women earn a living, but I am curious about one of the details. How come men do not go to prison for their involvement in prostitution?

What kind of double standards are we operating here? Why do people do their utmost to protect men's identities when a prostitute has been murdered?

The motion recognises that Glasgow faces deep-rooted challenges. I want to hear what plans the Executive has to tackle the problems that those women face. I applaud Glasgow City Council's turnaround project, which attempts to divert prostitutes from prosecution. I have no doubt that a serious debate will take place on such issues when we get back to Edinburgh, which has a different attitude to prostitution. I hope that my contribution today will stimulate that debate and a response from the Executive.

As the only member of the Health and Community Care Committee who is from Glasgow, it is incumbent on me to refer to health in the city. I have only four minutes, so it will be impossible for me to go into the matter in any depth. There is some humour in the funding situation, which will appeal to Glasgow folk. We seem to have had a bit of a humour bypass today, but while this city may have lived in poverty and misery, it has always kept its sense of humour.

The Minister for Health and Community Care has promised £26 million extra to Scotland from tobacco tax. That means that the minister is dependent on smokers ignoring her anti-smoking propaganda and continuing to smoke at their current rate. Is she appealing to smokers to puff away in the public interest and lay down their lives for their country pro bono publico?

No one here wants to see people smoking, and no one welcomes the health statistics that blight Glasgow. It is inappropriate to suggest that the Minister for Health and Community Care has some kind of strategy to do what Dorothy-Grace Elder suggests. It would be better to have a debate on health that focuses on the problems rather than another cheap political point.

The Minister for Health and Community Care is using the tobacco tax nevertheless—so I have a positive suggestion for her. She is claiming only £26 million of it for health, but Scottish smokers contribute £1 billion in tobacco tax. Why should it be hoarded by Gordon Brown as part of his £60 billion war chest? Gordon Brown could save lives in Glasgow by releasing all that tobacco tax to Scotland, but he chooses not to. Glasgow's health problems are too immense for peanut funding and tinkering round the edges.

Will the member give way?

No, I do not have much time. Glasgow is top of the Scottish league for premature death. The Bristol university report, "The widening gap", showed that most of the bottom 15 UK constituencies where people are most likely to die under the age of 65 are in Glasgow. The worst was Shettleston, where people are 2.3 times more likely to die under the age of 65 than the UK average. That is a scandalous statistic.

That report would have shamed any Government but Gordon Brown shows no shame. He holds on to that £60 billion while Glasgow dies young—this city suffers most from his policies.

Will the member give way?

The member is not giving way.

Glasgow children suffer—as I mentioned earlier, 62 per cent of children in Maryhill alone live in dire poverty, with associated ill health. An answer to that was proposed a few years ago by two people in an earlier report, "Scotland: The Real Divide", on the divide between wealth and poverty. They suggested a redistribution of this country's wealth. They stated:

"Rising levels of public expenditure are not only socially desirable but economically justifiable as a means of reducing unemployment".

Those people were Gordon Brown and Robin Cook, who have rather changed their minds since they became rich boys in London.

I will move on to some of the current crises in Glasgow health—just a few of them. A showpiece heart transplant unit at Glasgow royal infirmary has had to close. Desperately ill people are being sent to Newcastle, for possibly up to a year. That is scandalous and disgraceful in a country that has plenty of riches, if we could use them. Glasgow's public health department needs to do much more work investigating the toxic dumping that plagues the lives of people in the poor east end of Glasgow. At present patients at Glasgow dental hospital have to wait 71 weeks for a first appointment and children have to wait 24 weeks.

Yesterday Professor Gordon McVie, director of the Cancer Research Campaign, said:

"Thousands of Scottish lives could be saved from the disease if Scotland's poor were given the same chances as the rich".

He regretted that UK Government spending in Scotland went on nuclear missiles instead of on saving the poor. He said:

"People often describe cancer survival as a lottery, but I believe it is far worse. At least if you buy a lottery ticket you get an equal chance of winning".

In Scotland we win the lottery of life every year with the billions that we earn from oil and gas taxes, and much else, but those billions are wasted in London on the millennium dome and on Trident. Because of that our people in Glasgow suffer and their health problems are not tackled.

I am happy to follow Dorothy-Grace Elder, if only because I want to talk about health as well and I would like to put a more positive aspect on some of Dorothy-Grace's scaremongering. Glasgow is a city in need of a massive overhaul—there can be no doubt about that. In employment, health, housing and quality of life the city lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom and, in many cases, Europe.

The regeneration of Glasgow will not take place overnight, and the statistics that have been cited today indicate just how much has to be done. For example, in comparison with the rest of the country, unemployment is high and the level of job creation is low. Many factors will influence the regeneration of Glasgow, including health—a factor that is not always considered in that respect.

Glasgow is a city of considerable ill health: it has the worst heart disease rate in Europe, high mortality rates and a lung cancer rate that is more than 61 per cent higher than the national average. The link between ill health and poverty is extremely strong, and no one in this Parliament would deny that. Glasgow, unfortunately, has a high level of both.

We have also heard about a third factor: the quality of housing in the city. Poor housing is linked to poor health, which is linked to poverty, which is linked to poor housing, and so on. Only by breaking out of that vicious circle will Glasgow become a better place in which to live. The extra £12.5 million that has been announced by the minister today, to begin to address those housing problems, is very welcome.

The mortality rate for people aged between 45 and 64 is 37 per cent higher in Glasgow than the national average. Within the city, there are huge inequalities. Those who live in poor areas of Glasgow are far more likely to fall ill, have a heart attack or get cancer than those who live in more affluent areas. Recent reports have also shown that people who live in those deprived areas are much more likely to commit suicide, suffer from stress or schizophrenia, or have drug-related problems.

All those health issues have a bearing on people's employability, which means that those who live in Glasgow's deprived areas are much less likely to be able to contribute to the city's regeneration. It might sound obvious, but it has to be borne in mind at all times that, without recognising the scale of the problem, we cannot hope to find a suitably radical solution to it. Therefore, how do we tackle those health problems?

We must ensure that we deal with people who are already suffering. The current review of the provision of health care in Glasgow is a step towards that. I am glad that the Executive has signalled that there will be more investment in the national health service: £400 million, compared with the £30 million that it would have received under the SNP's spending proposals before the election. If the money that the Government is investing is spent correctly, we can greatly improve the lives of the people of Glasgow.

The unemployment rate in Glasgow is unarguably high: only 56 per cent of males of employable age in the Glasgow city area are currently in employment. In my constituency, the level of unemployment runs at 4.7 per cent, which is the lowest in the city. However, we must work to ensure that the improvement that has been made in Rutherglen is reflected elsewhere in the city.

The subject of the M74 extension was mentioned by a few colleagues this morning. I agree with Murray Tosh that that link is vital to the regeneration not only of Glasgow, but of Lanarkshire and the surrounding areas. I am constantly urging the Executive to continue to work positively with the local authorities and to provide them with the assistance that they need to make that extension a reality.

I echo the sentiments that were put forward by the minister in today's motion, and I hope that Glasgow can look forward to a much brighter future.

Several of those who wished to speak have dropped out of the debate. Two are left. I shall call both of them, provided that they keep their speeches to less than three minutes.

I am amazed at the hypocrisy of some of the Labour members. In 1988, I lodged a motion in Glasgow City Council, that the town clerk be instructed to investigate the possibility of Glasgow becoming the capital of Scotland in 2000 AD. The then lord provost, Susan Baird, tried to rule me out of order and not a single Labour member supported that motion. That is the sort of feeling that they had for Glasgow.

This morning, Kenny Gibson mentioned the affluent west end and the poor east end. One could also mention the north and south sides of Glasgow in the context of a health division. Many people who are present today may not be aware that, apart from Rutherglen maternity hospital, which the health board closed after 20 years, no new hospitals have been built on Glasgow's south side since Queen Victoria was on the throne. The Victoria infirmary was built in 1890.

Wendy Alexander proposed a vast stock transfer, and I am not opposed to that. She is, however, less willing to say why such a transfer is necessary. That would mean that the Scottish Labour party would be waving the white flag and admitting that, despite being in power in Glasgow for 59 of the past 67 years, it has failed for decades to manage public housing. No British city is as dependent on social housing as Glasgow is. Forty-seven per cent of the council's income from tenants' rent is spent on servicing the existing debt.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry. I have only three minutes.

Glasgow's population peaked in 1951 at 1,089,000. Today the population is 619,000, the lowest since 1891. At that rate, Edinburgh's population will exceed that of Glasgow within a decade.

Glasgow was the third busiest port in the United Kingdom, but the invention of the container some 30 years ago ended that. Some people say that they see no long-term future for shipbuilding in Britain, in particular in merchant ship design and construction. Only continued naval contracts in a small number of yards keeps the industry going. If there is not massive public and private investment that will bring Scottish shipbuilding into line with the modern shipbuilders in Finland, Germany and France, shipbuilding is, to be blunt, doomed. The Govan shipbuilders know that and I support them in their desperate fight for survival. The countries that I mentioned get most of the contracts for large cruise ships, for which there is great demand. How can Clyde shipbuilding re-establish itself and compete with shipbuilders on the continent and in the far east?

Attempts were made to reinvent Glasgow as a city of culture, but it could not compete with Florence. An attempt was made later to reinvent it as a city of architecture. Henry McLeish mentioned the fact that Glasgow is a principal retail centre, but much of what is spent comes from wealthy suburbs that lie beyond the city's boundary.

Glasgow is a great city, but it needs political leadership. We need to look forward to the 21^st century. Why not use Glasgow for a 21^st-century local government experiment, in which a mayor is elected by the people and there is a city committee that comprises prominent, non-elected individuals? The city should be given special zone status.

Henry McLeish and John Swinney mentioned tourism. Why not explore the possibility of a Glasgow Disneyland centre?

Wind up, please.

This is the final bit of my speech.

Make it very brief.

There have been hints dropped about expanding Glasgow's city boundaries. That would not solve Glasgow's problems. Johann Lamont was totally inaccurate when she said that those who live outside Glasgow and work in the city do not contribute to the city, because 85 per cent of the city's income comes from national taxation. The people she mentioned shop and do lots of other things in Glasgow.

On that point I end—inside my three minutes, I think, Presiding Officer.

You were, in fact, 52 seconds over it.

Earlier I proved publicly what my wife has said for a long time—that I am a little bit deaf. Perhaps I was too eager to speak before the debate ended.

When I was appointed head teacher of a school in Easterhouse in 1987, I went to the local inspector of schools to ask him what the school was like. Without giving members his full analysis, he said that my school had, unfortunately, one of the worst academic records in Glasgow. I am sorry to say to say that when I examine the league tables—which are fairly disreputable—I find that the successor school to my old school is in the same position. My school had that record despite the fact that staffing levels were reasonable, class sizes were small—partly because people dogged a lot—the staff were as good as one could find anywhere and the school was a technical and vocational education initiative pilot school for Glasgow. That scheme spread £500,000 over three schools in three years. That is a considerable amount of money, but it made little change.

One contributory factor was that children in the school came from homes where people had no work, or had very little work. They saw no need to go to school to learn because they knew that learning would lead them nowhere. The trouble with that situation was that it produced apathy. That was best expressed by the local minister who said that the people were so apathetic that the gangs had stopped fighting. That is serious apathy.

I am delighted that Colin Campbell has accepted my intervention because I represent Easterhouse and I want to pay tribute to the parents of that area who, despite poverty and many other problems, are strongly committed to their children and want the best education for them. I do not recognise the Easterhouse that Colin Campbell describes.

I cannot, in the limited time that is available, encapsulate 12 years of experience in Easterhouse. On the whole, the parents of Easterhouse are magnificent in support of their children. The problem is that they live in an area in which there is little work. Much of the increased unemployment in the area at the time was caused by the Conservative Government. The number of free school meals in my school went up from 250 to 375 shortly after that Government came to power.

I worked closely with very caring parents, but many people were not going anywhere because of the area. There was little or no gang trouble in the area, for which I was grateful and pleased. I enjoyed a good working relationship with the people, but there was little visible hope and a lot of apathy. Turning round apathy is probably the most important single thing that we must try to do here.

The lack of jobs is the major problem. Whatever else we want to do in terms of good housing, good transport and good health care, if we do not give people an opportunity to work, to enjoy the self-esteem that work promotes and to have enough money to make personal economic choices, we will fail. Bits of the package will not do; the whole package is necessary.

Winding-up speeches will be trimmed by one minute in each case. I call Donald Gorrie to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

I hope that the Parliament will take it as read that I have said at great length what a marvellous place Glasgow is, that I have trotted out an enormous stream of statistics and that I have gone through the ritual abuse of the other parties. If members will accept that, I can get on with my speech. I shall try not to duplicate the excellent points made by Robert Brown, Margaret Smith and George Lyon. Instead, I shall concentrate on a few other issues.

There are two ways in which the Executive could help Glasgow by creating more real jobs in the city. First, it could provide enough money to voluntary organisations and to the council so that they could employ people in real jobs to improve the community in a variety of ways, whether addressing environmental concerns or providing services for people. At the moment, too much money is spent on somewhat dubious training and economic development schemes. That money could be better spent if it was focused on helping organisations to create real jobs.

Secondly, we could transfer more civil servants and quangos—if we are to have quangos—to Glasgow and other places away from Edinburgh. Those jobs would be a real help to Glasgow. My colleague Jamie Stone suggests the Highlands, and I agree that all areas should benefit from such moves. We should spread those jobs around. I believe that Glasgow would benefit from that.

As a member for Central Scotland, I reinforce the points made by some other people. Mike Watson said that half the people who work in Glasgow do not live there. That is an important illustration of the fact that we should not look at Glasgow in isolation. The whole of central and west Scotland, together with Glasgow, are part of the same problem and the same opportunity. We should consider the area as a whole.

I support one point in the Conservative amendment—the call for a parliamentary committee dealing with Glasgow. In the past, I have advocated regional committees for all parts of Scotland based on the regional list areas. We could not do that in addition to all the work that we have at the moment. Effective regional committees that met occasionally on Mondays or perhaps had a whole week of activity might somewhat slow down the other work of the Parliament, but they would be an important way forward.

Constituency MSPs often feel restricted to matters affecting their constituency alone. In the case of Glasgow or other urban areas, one cannot revive one constituency without reviving the whole area. Regional committees would provide a valuable focus, for constituency members and list members alike, to co-operate with councils—without taking over their work—and, along with voluntary organisations, to help to deliver the social inclusion agenda and all the other things that we are keen on. I suggest that we consider the possibility of regional committees along those lines.

We should help councils by giving them powers of general competence, which they all want. They should be free to get on with it. Some of them would make mistakes and do things wrong, but it is better to have activity—good things and some mistakes—than inactivity. A lot of councils feel inhibited from doing good things, for the benefit of their community, by the lack of this power of general competence, which many councils on the continent have. We should certainly consider that and let people get on with it locally and in smaller units. There is a tendency, in all well-intentioned Governments, to work from the top down. We think there is a great problem in Glasgow and we have a good idea, so we must help and go along like a colonial governor trying to give out nice uniforms to the natives and improve the world. That desire to help people is understandable, but we must work in a better way by helping people to help themselves and work through communities.

I am sure that there are a lot of good activities in Glasgow—there certainly are in central Scotland, Edinburgh and other areas that I know about. We could do a lot more by helping communities to help themselves. There could be schemes to train and fund small local businesses, either, as it were, capitalist businesses or co-operative businesses that were started by local people—especially local women, who often have great talents in that direction but lack self-confidence and need a bit of professional advice, training and help to start up small businesses.

Even if a lot of those businesses end up in the black economy, it is better to have activity—even if Gordon Brown does not get to hear about it—than no activity. We should stimulate, at the lowest possible level, community activity of all sorts. We should encourage that and not get too worried about bureaucracy. There is a huge amount of local energy in all our communities, but people are often blighted by lack of self-confidence and lack of self-esteem. We could help them much more than we do through providing services, advice, training and so on.

We, in this country, are not good at encouraging communities to do their own thing in a different way. We must accept more variety and not impose ideas from the top. In that way, we could all help to let Glasgow flourish, as it deserves to do and already does to some extent. I contributed, in a very small way, by being chairman of the Edinburgh Youth Orchestra, which gave an excellent concert in Glasgow that was very well attended by Glasgow people. There can be co-operation between Edinburgh and Glasgow and in many cases, such as specialist medical facilities, they should be regarded as one. If we could consider the whole of central Scotland and the west as one issue and help all communities to develop their own activity, that would be a better answer to the problem than imposed, national, rigid and bureaucratic ideas.

It is with pleasure that I find myself in this building, because I can remember when it contained objects of great interest—pupils of the High School of Glasgow for boys. The fact that I remember that indicates that I am getting on a bit and, because I am getting on a bit, it means that I have known Glasgow for many years, socially as a student and also as someone who has been in business in this city.

I have seen changes, many of which have been enumerated in this debate: low gross domestic product; high unemployment; drugs abuse; extensive poverty; pervasive ill health; manifest social exclusion; and business deaths that exceed business start-ups. The bustle is out of the heart of the city. Anyone who has been in business in this city over the past 30 years can see that. Glasgow has the lowest economic activity rate among those of a working age of any place in Britain. Its population is falling and there are extensive tracts of derelict and vacant land.

However, there have been other changes. There has been the regeneration of the Merchant City, and Glasgow is making headway in the tourism sector—the garden festival and Glasgow's year as the city of architecture and design are testament to that. We have hotel facilities that rank with the best in the United Kingdom. With the universities of Glasgow, Strathclyde and Glasgow Caledonian, this city can hold up its head internationally as one of the premier providers of higher education. I declare an interest in that regard, as I sit in the court of Strathclyde University. We also have top-grade international airports in Glasgow and Glasgow Prestwick. Among the negative images are some very positive ones, many of which were created during 18 Tory years.

The most positive image—Glasgow's strongest feature—has never changed and never will. It is the beating pulse of Glaswegians, which shows itself, whether in Castlemilk, Easterhouse, Maryhill or Kelvinside, in warmth, humour and resilience. People in Kelvinside have their own way of demonstrating that, but it is still there. I want to use this opportunity to make a plea for Glasgow to the film makers, television drama writers and fiction authors. I ask them, when they create a character who is a villain, a wide boy or a chancer, to use a bit of literary imagination and give him a background other than Glasgow.

Although it is appropriate that in this place, on this day, we debate the regeneration of Glasgow, the words of the Executive's motion add up to little and the words of Ms Alexander's speech added up to even less. Braying repeatedly about small minds and small solutions was ill advised from the instigator of the repeal of section 28 and the proclaimer of what everyone regards as an indecently modest £12 million to address the visible and profound difficulties confronting this city.

In the minister's speech the very factors that are impeding development, expansion and job creation in Glasgow were conspicuous by their absence. They include the road traffic tourniquet that the M8 and Kingston bridge become at morning and evening rush hour. Travelling by her ministerial car, Ms Alexander may not be familiar with that, but I faced it for years. Where is the M74 extension? Glasgow's jobs need it, the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce regards it as its No 1 priority, and the business community is screaming for it.

Where in the minister's speech were business rates mentioned? I appreciate that she glides around in her ministerial car and seldom has to hoof it like the rest of us, but has she paused to glance at the "For sale" and "To let" signs in the city? Has she observed that the growth industry is charity shops, and does she know why that is? Does she have any understanding of what removal by the Government of uniform business rate means, and does she really think that the imposition of a higher rate poundage for Scotland than for England is the way to encourage the regeneration of Glasgow and the creation of jobs?

For existing employees, are the city entry charges and workplace charges proposed by the Government not active deterrents to regeneration? Glasgow City Council leader Charles Gordon certainly thinks so. He said:

"We're setting our face against urban road tolls", and he is right to do that. Has the minister given any thought to the thousands of square feet of unoccupied property in the commercial heart of Glasgow? It will never again be occupied by commerce, so why does the Executive not enter into a dialogue with the council about pioneering redevelopment of that space for residential purposes? As regeneration of the Merchant City showed, there is a demand for that. Through such redevelopment, we could reduce commuter pressure on roads, start to reverse depopulation and bring much-needed resources back into the city.

The Conservative amendment indicates additional specific measures which, in our opinion, would assist in addressing the challenge of urban regeneration for Glasgow. We propose a minister for Glasgow. That is not a suggestion that we make lightly, but an attempt to ensure that there is co-ordination and focus on what must be a concerted and conjoined effort. We also propose a directly elected provost and a Glasgow parliamentary committee.

This is the biggest conurbation in Scotland. Its problems are more pervasive and, I suspect, more universal than the problems anywhere else in Scotland. Our amendment seems to me to be devolution in action. The words of the song are that "Glasgow belongs to me". However, to make regeneration work requires joint action and not joined-up words in a motion. The challenges that face Glasgow mean that Glasgow belongs to us. The Conservative amendment offers a meaningful and practical approach to that regeneration. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.

I was not expecting Annabel Goldie to sit down quite so quickly—that probably sums up the Tory contribution today.

This has, in the main, been a good debate. However, as is so often the case, there have been some honourable, or not so honourable, exceptions. Let me start with the Tories, who thoroughly deserve today's award for barefaced cheek. The Tory amendment

"asks the Executive to address these problems in Glasgow as a matter of urgency".

I would echo that sentiment—but let us ask ourselves why the problems in Glasgow are so urgent. I will tell members why the problems in Glasgow are so urgent: in the 18 long years that the Conservatives were in government, it slipped their minds to do anything at all about the problems in Glasgow.

rose—

Annabel Goldie has had an opportunity, but if she lets me continue, I will come back to her later.

Since 1974, Glasgow has lost 75,000 manufacturing jobs and 200,000 of its people. Who was in power for most of those years? Between 1981 and 1991, Glasgow lost more jobs than the rest of Scotland put together. Who was in power during those years?

rose—

Not just now.

No one in Glasgow will take lessons from the Tories. They may look like a jury, sitting over there, but make no mistake, they are in the dock. When it comes to responsibility for Glasgow's problems, they are every bit as guilty as the members on the Labour benches.

Does Ms Sturgeon accept that the problems that she articulates would be very unlikely to be resolved in an independent Scotland with higher taxation? Does she accept that those problems would be very unlikely to be resolved by her support for taxing workplace car parks and for city entry charges? Does she accept that, notwithstanding all her posturing and all her opprobrium for the Conservatives, her own party's policies do not address one iota of the current difficulties confronting Glasgow?

Miss Goldie has already given her winding-up speech, but I detect that we have touched a raw nerve with the Conservative party.

Let me move on to the Liberal Democrats. Robert Brown, in his opening speech, rightly reflected on the need for the political regeneration of Glasgow through proportional representation. We heard some fine words. However, Robert Brown failed to answer the simple question that was posed by my colleague Shona Robison. She asked whether PR was a principle on which the Liberal Democrats were prepared to stand up and be counted. He failed to answer the question and failed to say that the Liberal Democrats would leave the coalition if PR were not implemented before the next local government elections. Is PR, like tuition fees, simply another principle that has been ditched in order to keep the coalition limping along?

Let me turn now to the Minister for Communities. I am glad to see that she has decided to rejoin us for the closing part of the debate. Wendy Alexander was obviously so concerned about the capacity of the small minds that surround her to absorb any new thinking that she decided against putting forward a single new idea from the Executive benches this morning. Her contribution was nothing more than a series of platitudes—fine words aplenty, but precious little in the way of firm proposals or new resources. Now we find out that the one announcement that she made—the £12 million for Glasgow—is nothing more than a recycled announcement. That is not a new trick by a Labour Government, but today the Minister for Communities and her Labour colleagues have been found out and found wanting.

Aside from some of the opening speeches, this has been a good debate, because it focused on Glasgow's successes as well as Glasgow's problems. Let us face it—Glasgow has plenty of both. It is a city of contrasts. It is a friendly city that is secretly proud of its no nonsense image. It is a city that houses some of Scotland's richest people, as well as some of its most deprived. It is a city that is as beautiful in its own way as any in the world, but that has some of the worst housing conditions in Europe. That is another of the contrasts that have run through today's debate.

In one sense, the story of Glasgow during the past 20 years is an economic success. Anyone who seeks to downplay that success does this city a great disservice. Glasgow has proved its ability to adapt. Since the early 1980s, the Glasgow economy has been reinvented. Having moved away from its dying manufacturing base, it now has predominantly a service economy. While we should praise Glasgow's ability to adapt, we should also listen to the words of Jamie Webster of the Govan shipyard, when he warns that, welcome as service jobs and call centres are, Glasgow cannot sustain itself on them alone.

Will the member give way?

No, not just now. [MEMBERS: "Go on."] We need manufacturing jobs—a subject to which I will return later.

I will give way to Ben Wallace now.

Does Ms Sturgeon agree that, if Scotland were to get its independence, all the yards at Yarrow and Govan and the defence establishment at Bishopton would simply disappear? Those jobs, and the people from Glasgow who work in them, would have no future because of the SNP's agenda of narrow nationalism.

When Scotland is independent, there will be even less for Ben Wallace to do in his future career as a Westminster member of Parliament.

I will return to the subject of Glasgow's successes. Glasgow's economic output is the highest of any unitary authority in Scotland. It is the media and cultural capital of Scotland and has some of the best restaurants, bars and shops in Scotland. It is one of the principal higher education centres in Scotland, with 34 per cent of Scotland's university population. Those successes should be celebrated but, on the whole, they have been successes for the city of Glasgow, not for the citizens of Glasgow.

Glasgow alliance's five key action plans and vision of social inclusion and the work of the social inclusion partnerships are to be commended, but much more needs to be done.

Glasgow's health statistics are testimony to the city's crippling poverty. As Dorothy-Grace Elder said, more people die prematurely of cancer and heart disease than elsewhere in Scotland. Such statistics are a direct result of poverty, which, in turn, is related directly to levels of unemployment. By that, I mean real unemployment and not the fiddled figures that used to be criticised by the Labour party, which now peddles them day in, day out. For the past 10 years, real unemployment has been constant in Glasgow at 28 per cent. Three years of a Labour Government, one year of a Labour Executive in Scotland and more years than anyone cares to remember of a Labour council have made no appreciable difference to those unemployment statistics. Labour should be ashamed of itself.

Kenny Gibson talked about the skills gap. It is not just that more jobs have been lost than have been created over the past 20 years; it is also the case that the new jobs are not compatible with those that have been lost. Only the senior managerial and professional sector has seen real growth in Glasgow. The greatest losses have been among skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Therefore, the people who were losing their jobs in the 1980s and into the 1990s are highly unlikely to get the new jobs that are being created. It is in that context that we can well understand the determination of people such as the Govan shipyard workers to keep their manufacturing jobs.

The result of that gap between the qualifications and experience of Glasgow people and the types of jobs that are being created is that 50 per cent of Glasgow's work force are not resident in the city. Of course, that means that they are not council tax payers in the city either, as other members have noted. Addressing that skills gap—that imbalance between the supply and demand of labour—must be a central plank of an effective regeneration strategy.

We must also address the educational under-attainment of young people in Glasgow, so that future generations are equipped to compete with the best for the best jobs. It should be a matter of shame for anyone, whether on the Tory side or the Labour side of the chamber, who has been involved in the governance of Glasgow during the past 20 years that only 16 per cent of school leavers in Glasgow get three or more highers, against a national average of 28 per cent. They should be ashamed that 14 per cent leave school with no qualifications at all, against a national average of only 6 per cent; that more people leave school at 16 than anywhere else in Scotland; and that Glasgow's schools occupy six of the eight bottom places in the league table for higher passes.

Will Nicola Sturgeon give way?

Mr Brown has had his chance.

We must also create new, sustainable manufacturing jobs, but we can do that only if we stimulate local demand for labour. For the amount of money that has been spent on the new deal, the return has been modest. Only 2,300 sustainable jobs have been filled in Glasgow through the new deal—and by sustainable I mean more than 13 weeks. We can stimulate demand only by investing in our infrastructure.

It has been pointed out that 9 per cent of Glasgow's land is derelict, and we must bring that land back into use. We should consider other examples such as the new towns, West Lothian and parts of Glasgow, where derelict land has been redeveloped to construct purpose-built office and factory units. Such projects stimulate demand for manufacturing jobs, provide real apprenticeships for young people and create a powerful incentive for inward investment. That kind of strategy has brought unemployment in West Lothian below the national average, and if it can work there, it can work in Glasgow.

Indeed, such strategies have already been successful in Glasgow. Govan Initiative, one of the most successful economic development agencies in Europe, is leading the way by bringing together different funders to develop gap sites and, by doing so, creating jobs and attracting investment. For example, the majority of the 3,000 new jobs that have been created at Braehead shopping centre have gone to local people—that is significantly more than the new deal has managed to provide in the whole of Glasgow.

Furthermore, we need to improve the city's competitiveness. We have already heard about the importance of completing the M74 extension. If Frank McAveety can get to his feet and announce that when he sums up, he will rightly get a pat on the back from people across Glasgow. However, if he cannot do so, he will be failing those people.

Glasgow needs a regeneration strategy that works and improves not only the city but the lives of Glasgow's citizens. The Tory party and the Labour party have had plenty of opportunities to do something about the city. Wendy Alexander was right about one thing: Glasgow needs big ideas. However, the only big ideas we have heard today have come from the SNP benches. [Interruption.]

Order. I appeal for an end to conversations in the chamber. It is becoming difficult to hear the speakers.

Thank you. [Interruption.] I see that my fame has gone before me. However, I should say that completing the M74 myself in the three minutes before I rose to my feet—as Nicola Sturgeon suggested—would have required a Herculean effort even by the product of Irish navvies.

As for today's debate, it is disingenuous for an SNP member to come to Glasgow and deliver such a summing-up speech. It is not enough for SNP members to talk Scotland down repeatedly when we are in Edinburgh; they have come to Glasgow to talk Glasgow down as well.

No one has sole ownership of what matters to Glasgow: what matters to Glasgow is Glasgow itself and how we, as politicians and decision makers, can make a difference in the way in which we tackle Glasgow's long-term needs and concerns. I genuinely believe that many SNP members want to change the city for the better, even though we might have different political ideas about how to do that. However, their claim that we portray the city solely as a victim instead of as a city of opportunity, of change, and of dynamism undermines much of the hard work of organisations that make a real difference for the city of Glasgow, and often in unpropitious circumstances.

We are discussing how we change not just Scotland but Scotland's largest city. I care passionately about Glasgow, where I was born and brought up and where I want to spend the rest of my life. Sometimes change causes pain and transition is difficult, and sometimes hard choices have to be made. We are in a city of substantial contrast, which it is too easy to caricature as the allegedly affluent west end versus the poor east end. I think that that is as much an insult to the constituents of Pauline McNeill as it is to my constituents in Glasgow Shettleston.

There has been a population decline, but that has now slowed because of some of the measures that the citizens and leadership of Glasgow have introduced. The decline has to be arrested because we are facing up to some of the substantial changes that are required in the city. We have concentrations of poverty alongside thriving mixed neighbourhoods. If we want a real revolution in Glasgow—as some people claim we need—we must change that so that most, if not all, of our neighbourhoods are mixed and thriving.

Visitors to this city, whose number has risen by 40 per cent in the past 15 years, recognise a vibrant dynamic city, which is part of northern Europe, and part of a country that is, through partnership, a part of the wider UK. They also recognise that, as Henry McLeish identified, new technologies and opportunities for investment are starting to be a feature of Glasgow's inward investment strategy. That is contrary to the dated academic reports to which the SNP referred this morning.

Another issue is that there is a contrast in our education provision between an exceptionally high-quality further and higher education sector and an underperforming primary and secondary school sector. The way to change that is to get substantial, large-scale investment in schools.

We also recognise that there is dissatisfaction with aspects of the public sector housing stock.

The issue is not solely money. Last night, I was at a meeting in my constituency, because I take time to listen to Glasgow citizens on issues such as housing. People at that meeting grilled me for two hours on housing proposals. The outcome was that they wanted something that would make a difference to them in real time—rather than offering jam some time in the future.

Glasgow is a city of strengths and weaknesses.

Will the minister give way?

I will give way to Mr Sheridan in a moment.

How do we change a city? This is also about other great cities in Scotland, although we happen to be in Glasgow this afternoon. We should recognise that Glasgow and Edinburgh are only 45 miles apart and can share their experience.

rose—

I will be happy to take interventions in a moment, although first I will continue with some of the key points about the challenge of changing things.

The previous Labour Government introduced the GEAR project for the east end of Glasgow. That was stopped in its tracks by the change in social and economic policy under the Conservative Government after 1979. Regeneration in Glasgow is recognised by many other practitioners across Europe, so much so that the regeneration unit of the city council is regularly asked to take social organisations and individuals round Glasgow so that they can see how regeneration can be tackled. We have an international reputation in that area.

It is important to recognise how we can make a genuine difference to the people of Glasgow.

rose—

We must join in a combination of the UK Government, the Scottish Parliament and the Executive, led by Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues, and we must recognise that the local authority has a key role to play. Most important, the people of Glasgow have an opportunity to make their point. I would like to hear the people of Glasgow, but sometimes I like to hear Dorothy-Grace Elder.

I am puzzled about who the malign force is that has been in charge of Glasgow all these years, while all these dreadful things were happening—nobody from the Labour side has named who it was.

When will the Executive ensure that Scottish Executive departments and other Government departments come to Glasgow and give us the jobs that we need?

I remind Dorothy-Grace Elder, in case she missed it in the snooze period in the afternoon for her own contribution, that Henry McLeish announced that his department is moving through to Glasgow. I can announce that it will be located at the new Europa building on Argyle Street from June. Therefore, we are even satisfying Dorothy-Grace Elder this afternoon.

The minister alleges that either we have to accept the stock transfer or we go for jam tomorrow. Does he agree that the stock transfer proposal involves a 10-year investment programme? According to the housing director, if the debt were transferred without conditions, the council would be able to invest the same amount over 10 years as is promised under the stock transfer proposal. I have a letter from the housing director that says that. Does the minister therefore agree that the stock transfer proposal amounts to political blackmail?

The unique feature of Mr Sheridan's debating style is that he always uses words of anger when he describes the positions of others. If we had chosen to adopt the old model of funding—what the local authority asked for in 1988—it would still take between 17 and 20 years to deliver the substantial change that people are currently crying out for. The vast majority of the core work will be undertaken in the six-year programme, which will be complemented by the additional four-year programme.

Last night I met 100 residents from the Sandyhills area, who have perhaps missed out on much of the investment, because it has not been spread across the housing stock in Glasgow. They recognise that, for the first time in generations, there is an opportunity for their area to get real investment on a time scale that matters to them. Unlike Mr Sheridan, I will leave the tenants to decide on the available options, rather than the politicians.

The Glasgow alliance, which has been mentioned by several members, has noble objectives. It has already flagged up many of the issues that we have discussed in today's debate. It so happens that I was the chairman of the alliance when it was first set up by Donald Dewar, when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. My colleagues and I do not need the SNP to lecture us on the fact that land reclamation is an issue. We have made a commitment to reduce by 50 per cent the amount of land that is derelict in Glasgow. In particular, that will positively affect my constituents in the east end of Glasgow. We recognise that we need to change the supply side of the economy to ensure that there are genuine opportunities for citizens in Glasgow to benefit from economic prosperity.

However, land assembly is a complex issue.

This afternoon I was in the Gallowgate area for the announcement of the opening of new flats in the Molendinar Park Housing Association. There is a critical tension between the tenants who want the land for new housing and other agencies that want that land assembled for industrial use. We need local engagement in order to reach decisions on such matters.

Too many of our citizens have been excluded from the economic prosperity that has been experienced in Glasgow in the past few years. The question is how can we change that. Every academic report identifies the problems and concludes that we need better educational provision and better-quality housing; we need to ensure that people have an opportunity to access employment and training. Everything that has been said by the Glasgow alliance—pioneered by Glasgow City Council in partnership with the new Labour Government in 1997 and continued by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive—is about making progress on those issues. It is not just about agencies, the council or politicians; it is about the people of Glasgow.

The minister mentioned housing associations and tenants taking control in Glasgow. In today's debate, we have not talked about the important work that housing associations have already done in regenerating Glasgow. Such organisations—for example, Partick Housing Association—are very concerned about the impact of the extension of the right to buy to housing associations. Will the minister reassure those who have worked so hard to produce regeneration programmes for housing in the city that the Executive will either abandon the policy of the extension of the right to buy or make concessions to put them at ease?

We spent the past 10 months negotiating the framework agreement with the city council to ensure that the model of community ownership and participation praised by Fiona Hyslop will be the central feature of housing regeneration in Glasgow. I hope that, after we have dispensed with the rhetoric of today's debate, the SNP will have the bravery to get on the train and move forward with the rest of the people of Glasgow.

The reality is that, when it comes to real choices, SNP members run away. They quibble on the sidelines about the public-private partnership for the 29 secondary schools. They niggle on the sidelines about the issue of the stock transfer. I will take two examples that I heard in the past week, when waking from my slumbers. Two weeks ago, we were told that this city is desperate for employment, that we cannot afford to approve a stock transfer that might put 2,000 direct labour organisation jobs at risk and that we should stop the transfer in its tracks.

We were told two mornings ago by Kenny Gibson—not a wonderful sight or experience to wake up to— [Laughter.] I am talking about Kenny Gibson on the radio. He said that we do not have the opportunity to fulfil that requirement for employment, because too many of the jobs that might be created might go to outsiders. In case it has escaped Mr Gibson's attention, we are in a city whose social development resulted from economic migration—people came here to build much of our infrastructure. There is a recognition that we have an opportunity to make a difference.

I assure members that we will work with the further education colleges. In fact, my colleagues in the Labour group met FE college principals this week to discuss the very issue of what we can do to make the connections to ensure that Glasgow residents make a difference. I also draw members' attention to the apprenticeship programme pioneered by Labour Glasgow City Council. It targets apprenticeship development for youngsters from disadvantaged areas. The examples are there, Mr Gibson—let us have the courage to take them forward.

rose—

rose—

I would love to let Miss Goldie in. I would love to let a Tory intervene, but the Tories had 18 years to intervene in Glasgow—so I will not let her in this afternoon.

As for our changes, I have listened to most of the speeches today, unless called away—

Will Mr McAveety give way?

I am sorry; I want to continue. For the Tories—

Will the minister give way? It is a benign point.

Never trust a Tory who says, "It is benign." I am concerned, so I shall give way.

Did Mr McAveety once wear a brown blazer, and was he at the school that used to be in this building?

I am interested in what Mr McAveety is saying about housing. Obviously, his arguments are concentrated on the current issue of housing stock transfer. However, does he accept that there is currently a practical problem with the unoccupied commercial square footage in the city centre? There are vast tracts of it. Does he concede that there is another opportunity there, by bringing people back into the city centre? That would not only help address a housing problem, but would address a social problem: for many people, the city centre is not the most attractive place to go at night.

I can confirm that the local authority and many other agencies have, in the past year, established a city centre partnership to acknowledge that issue. If that connects with the area housing partnerships, many of the concerns that Annabel Goldie has just raised will be addressed through that integration.

I have listened carefully to the key issues raised today. I would like to caricature some of the arguments—that is a political right, sometimes. The Tories claimed that it was the council that was to blame for many of Glasgow's problems; the nationalists, predictably, blamed London; and the independent revolutionary Trotskyist blamed capitalism.

Let us try to respond to reality, and as Marx once said—[MEMBERS: "Ah."] I know that nationalists have a problem understanding class-based economic theories. However, as Marx once said, our job is not solely to interpret the world— [Interruption.]—if I can get to the end of my sentence, Presiding Officer, but to change the world—or to change the city. Unfortunately, we have heard a litany of what I would call political Micawberism from SNP members—waiting for something else to turn up.

But we can genuinely make a difference, and we can change people's experience and the places in which they live. This afternoon I was in the Gallowgate, in the area of Graham Square, site of the former meat market of Glasgow. There is a new-build housing development there, combining owner-occupation, substantial rented property and a recognition of a social mix. In fact, of the 62 residents, a substantial number are already working in the arts community in Glasgow. They want to make a real change for their area. They recognise that that opportunity for change was important. Pauline, one of the residents, said to me, "I've got a benefit here, minister, for myself and my family. I want everybody else to share in that prosperity." That is why we are here in Glasgow. We are here briefly, this afternoon, and for the next couple of weeks, but what we will learn in the next couple of weeks is what we will take back into our policy areas to make a real difference.

People out there recognise that change is coming to this city. I hope that we, as citizens of Glasgow and as people who represent Scotland, can work so that the largest city benefits. I commend the motion lodged by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

I call Mr Gallie on a point of order— [Interruption.] Order. I wish to listen to this.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not the custom in the chamber that when someone is summing up a debate, they have the courtesy to have been present throughout that debate? Have we not heard the minister say, on several occasions, that he was elsewhere this afternoon? Is that courtesy to the chamber?

I remind Mr Gallie that I was engaged on a working lunch.