Wealthier and Fairer

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:32 pm on 30 May 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Liam McArthur Liam McArthur Liberal Democrat 4:32, 30 May 2007

I, too, congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches—I empathise with them. I thought that they all conducted themselves extremely well. I reassure John Lamont that age discrimination does not feature when we choose which constituencies to target.

We have heard much today, and over recent weeks, about the new politics in Scotland. Those of us who are of a betting persuasion—possibly even the First Minister himself—could be running a sweepstake on how many times the new politics will be referred to in any given debate or at question time. So far, establishing precisely what the new politics will deliver has eluded us, although it appears to have resulted in John Swinney earning the nickname "midwife of maiden speeches". By the looks of things, it is not just the Cabinet that is being slimmed down; the new politics appears to have ushered in debates without motions. I hope that that is not a precursor to parliamentary questions without answers. I suppose we will have to wait until midday tomorrow to find out.

As a number of members have said, no one can argue with the aspiration of creating a Scotland that is wealthier and fairer. On the basis of today's debate, I dare say that there will even be cross-party agreement on many of the ways in which we go about achieving that. Certainly, the detail that the cabinet secretary was able to provide on his intentions was welcome. I appreciate that the proposals will take some time to develop, but welcome the cabinet secretary's invitation to the Liberal Democrats and others to work on taking that detail forward.

As Tavish Scott said, the Liberal Democrats are proud of our record in government, in which growing the economy sustainably over the long term was established as the number 1 priority. That focused record investment on education, on skills and training, on transport and electronic infrastructure—I make a passing reference to broadband, which I do not think has been mentioned by other members—on reducing business rates and on encouraging business growth. It is no coincidence that we have seen sustained growth in our gross domestic product figures over recent years—often, as Wendy Alexander made clear, at higher levels than historic trends.

It is also no coincidence—as we have heard on a number of occasions from a number of members—that employment has been at historically high levels and unemployment has been at historically low levels. I note Alex Neil's point about the construction sector, which has performed well and enjoyed significant growth. The modern apprenticeships scheme has been successful in achieving the 30,000 target. It is clear that there are issues about quality, about maintaining that level and about pressing on, but it would be wrong to draw a veil over that success.

Education featured in the comments of Jeremy Purvis, Elizabeth Smith and others. More can be done, and skills, research and cutting-edge technologies will remain key to achieving our objectives in that area. It is therefore disappointing that the SNP Government has decoupled enterprise from lifelong learning in the structure of government and, as Jeremy Purvis said, has failed to make a commitment to invest in universities and colleges. However, I look forward to hearing what Fiona Hyslop says in her winding-up speech.

Historically, Scotland has not had the right levels of investment in research and development. Alex Neil made that point well. Traditionally, we have performed very poorly. The Liberal Democrats believe that an investment and innovation agency should be established. Such an agency would bring together current R and D, proof of concept, incubator, venture capital and equity support from the Government and it would follow best practice in places such as Finland. I note that John Swinney has drawn attention to the Liberal Democrats' track record of developing ideas in that area. I give a commitment to work with him in taking them forward.

World-class infrastructure and transport are also crucial. As we heard, the SNP's stated intention to abandon key transport projects such as trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link will be devastating not just to the economy of Edinburgh but, given the city's importance, to the overall Scottish economy.

We welcome what the cabinet secretary said about lower business rates. Ian McKee, Derek Brownlee and Michael Matheson alluded to the importance of reducing business rates still further. That is important to the economy as a whole, but particularly to smaller towns. I think that ministers will enjoy widespread support for the measure, not just in the Parliament but beyond it.

There has been a lot of debate on Scottish Enterprise. I say simply that Scottish Enterprise—despite its problems—Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Development International have all played important roles in delivering Scotland's economic performance. Indeed, they are seen by our international competitors as case studies in the roles that they perform—HIE in delivering economic development in dispersed rural areas, and SDI in promoting and sustaining inward investment and helping domestic companies to internationalise. The fairness component was to some extent the Cinderella of the debate. As with the cabinet secretary's portfolio, the debate may have bitten off more than it could chew, but I acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of Bob Doris, John Park and a couple of others who focused on fairness.

I am sure that John Swinney is aware that he will get our support in taking forward the detail of his proposals on the council tax when they come before the chamber.

Despite the lack of a motion, the debate has been constructive and worth while. The cabinet secretary set out his thinking on a number of areas and members of all parties will be keen to take up the invitation to work on the detail. However, the Government remains silent about its intentions in too many areas, not least transport. I am cautious about adding to Mr Swinney's workload by inviting him to lead yet another debate—although there are probably a few maiden speeches that he has not yet heard—but I encourage him and his ministerial team to provide clarity on that point during the coming weeks.