|
A Green Jobs Strategy
A debate on motion S2M-2049, in the name of Jim
Wallace, on a green jobs strategy, together with three amendments to the
motion.
The
Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
The debate has been interesting—not least the viewpoint of the previous
speaker. I will reiterate the key points that my colleague Jim Wallace made;
then I will address points that members raised over the piece.
Jim Wallace made the fundamental point, which the Tories at least
recognised: the Executive believes that economic growth in the 21st century
must be sustainable. We are firmly committed to building a strong and
competitive economy in Scotland, but it must be sustainable for the benefit
of future generations.
Let me remind some members why a strong economy is so important. A strong
economy is essential if we want first-rate public services, to which
everybody in the chamber aspires; it is necessary if we want to tackle
poverty and disadvantage, create training and employment opportunities and
address issues of social exclusion; and, as Alex Neil just said, it is vital
if Scotland is to compete alongside the best in the global economy.
However, allied to those key aims and objectives is the need, which we
recognise for future generations, to protect the natural beauty and
biodiversity of our environment. Indeed, there are economic spin-off
benefits from that, through increased tourism et al. The drive towards
sustainable development will generate significant business opportunities in
Scotland. We are convinced that there is potential for Scotland to be a
world leader in a number of the new green sectors that have been mentioned,
such as marine energy, biomass, waste and recycling. We have signalled our
commitment to those sectors by setting what are by anyone's standards
demanding targets.
More than ever, Scotland needs innovative businessmen and women whose smart
ideas for energy saving products and services help others to make the best
use of their resources, thereby stimulating the economic growth to which I
have referred. The challenge is not easy and will require industry's best
brains, especially in the sectors that have been highlighted in the debate.
However, I am sure members agree that it is crucial that we succeed in the
task, which is vital for Scotland's future prosperity and environment and
for the social cohesion to which we all aspire. In that context, Alex Neil
was absolutely correct. We should consider not microcosms of what we are
doing but the big picture about where we invest, what we invest and the
objectives with which we invest.
At the start of the debate, John Swinney spoke about community and household
renewables. We are supporting the installation and development of a large
number of wood-fuel heating initiatives throughout the Highlands and
elsewhere in Scotland and we support many other community renewables
projects.
We have been quizzed about a separate Scottish energy policy. I respectfully
submit that the devolved areas of policy that we are discussing demonstrate
our clear commitment to a wide range of renewables, to increasing energy
efficiency and to tackling and eliminating fuel poverty throughout Scotland.
Where macroeconomic policy is properly reserved to the Westminster
Government, we work co-operatively with Westminster to ensure that
Scotland's interests are properly addressed. Biofuels, to which Alex Neil's
colleague Richard Lochhead
referred, represent a classic example of that. As members know, tax
incentives to promote the greater use of Biofuels are set centrally, but in
Scotland we introduced investment incentives to companies such as Argent
Energy Ltd to set up here. The fact that an Austrian company is establishing
a renewable energy business in Scotland is a consequence of the sound
business environment that companies find here, which welcomes such inward
investment and is not in any way a failure, as it was portrayed. Of course
there is also public support and assistance of around £1.2 million in
regional selective assistance.
I was interested to hear about energy crops, given that I have moved out of
that field into a new field—excuse the pun. I am happy to point out to my
good friend and colleague Christine May that, largely as a consequence of
common agricultural policy reform, which we debated in the Parliament,
producers of energy crops other than sugar beet, on land other than
set-aside or forage can claim an energy crop payment, whether the arable
payments scheme or the single farm payment scheme is in operation. A flat
rate of €45 per hectare is available for areas under energy crops that meet
certain conditions.
I am keen that a level playing field should be established throughout the UK
and Europe. Following representations made to me in respect of developments
in Fife, and in Levenmouth in particular, we are anxious to ensure that the
public procurement policies that we apply are at least as beneficial as
those that apply in
any other part of the European Union, in order that we can attract and
retain some of the economic additional benefit that will accrue from
entering into, for instance, manufacturing capacity for renewable energy
development.
I give another example of how we have been successful. We have attracted
from Portugal the investment in wave swing. Scotland is recognised
internationally as a centre of excellence in new marine energy technology.
I am sure that Alex Neil would agree that the Green party in particular
constantly carps and criticises that there are contradictions in our
approach to road building and sustainable development, but that myth was
ably scotched by Alex Neil this afternoon. We have made it plain that the
green jobs strategy should be positive and practicable.
Patrick Harvie: I am grateful to the minister for giving way and affording
me the opportunity to ask him for exactly how long the ever-growing traffic
increase can be sustained.
Allan Wilson: We have targets to reduce the ever-growing use of the nation's
roads and to achieve a standstill in that growth in the foreseeable future.
The point that I make, which Alex Neil ably made and which applies equally
to air transportation and road transportation, is that good air links and
road links are vital, not simply to our economy, but to our wider society.
They are particularly important to our most remote and rural communities,
which are a vital part of what I call the Scottish community. We have to
balance the economic and social benefits that accrue as a consequence of
such development against the damage that any development does to our
environment.
Mark Ballard: Will the minister give way?
Allan Wilson: I would like to move on, although I am happy to take other
interventions.
The Greens need to go back and look at what we are doing on recycling, for
example. That is another issue on which we are criticised, but we are the
first Government in Scottish history to take it seriously. We have invested
tens of millions of pounds in supporting councils to increase the rate of
recycling. More important, the Greens ignore the effort that millions of our
fellow Scots are making to improve their personal recycling rate.
Shiona Baird: The minister misunderstands. We support what the Executive is
doing, but we always want to push it that wee bit further. More needs to be
done to achieve a zero-waste economy, which is what we are looking for from
the Executive. We are not negating what the Executive has done already; we
are applying positive pressure to get it to go further.
Allan Wilson: I do not think that the Greens are misunderstood. I
understand—perhaps all too well—what is proposed, which would be detrimental
to the wider social, economic and environmental interests of this country.
Ted Brocklebank virtually denounced onshore wind power. Perhaps if the
Government of 20 years ago had been less concerned about closing coal mines
and had invested in clean coal technology we might be in a better position
and be less reliant on onshore wind power.
Mr Brocklebank: Since I was generous enough to accept that previous
Governments did not pay enough attention to what we were saying, would the
minister be generous enough to admit that he realises that onshore wind
power is
not the way to go, that we are in danger of repeating the mistakes that were
made in Denmark and California and that we should be vaulting beyond those
techniques into new, alternative energy systems?
Allan Wilson: Ted Brocklebank is absolutely and completely wrong, which I
say with all due respect. I say that to the Tories, but I also say it to the
Nats and, incidentally, to the Trots, who have become the party of the
omnipresent "No". We cannot have green jobs without green projects. There is
no point in talking green, but then turning yellow at the first whiff of
grapeshot. If members support wind power, they must go out and argue for it
in their communities. Far too many members are not prepared to do that when
the going gets tough.
I have a final, very important point on the Tories. We had a measured speech
from Murdo Fraser, but Brian Monteith's stream of consciousness—perhaps I
should say semi-consciousness—missed the point. We do not have just green
jobs; we have a rainbow of jobs. I am happy to quote from the Daily Record
this week:
"Last month, the number of Scots claiming jobseekers' allowance fell by 600
to 90,400, which is 3.4 per cent of the work force and the lowest figure
since 1975."
That is almost 30 years ago. The article goes on to say that "The number of
Scots in work rose by 20,000 over the same period", meaning that the
employment rate is "the highest since 1992."
All those jobs and all that employment create economic opportunity and
address the social exclusion that makes our communities unsustainable. The
present situation contrasts starkly with the Tory record of the 1980s, when
3.5 million people were unemployed. Unemployment was a tool of economic
management that was used to wider economic ends.
We reject those theories. The Executive's most important strategy is the
delivery of sustainable employment and full employment. That objective is
within our reach and green jobs will help us to get there.
To view entire debate, please
Click Here
|
