 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 2976, in the name of Colin Beattie, on an industrial strategy for a more prosperous, fairer Britain. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. Colin Beattie, to open the debate. Around seven minutes, please, Mr Beattie. I would like to open today's debate by thanking all the MSPs who supported the motion that I submitted, particularly the support by Richard Leonard, who is actively involved in its drafting. I also note that in the public gallery we have a number of members of the Industrial Communities Alliance and the cross-party group on industrial communities. For those of you who are unaware, the ICA, the Industrial Communities Alliance, is the all-party association of local authorities in the industrial areas of England, Scotland and Wales, and it plays a highly active role in the cross-party group on industrial communities, which I convene. I hope that by now all MSPs have had a chance to read the Industrial Communities Alliance's industrial strategy publication. I am sure that those who have would join me and congratulate me on the ICA on what is clearly a substantial document that seeks to highlight the present diminished state of industry in Britain and proposes the steps that should be taken to drastically improve the state of affairs. As a quick overview of industrial strategy, the argument is made in the opening pages that Britain's economy is fundamentally unbalanced with far too much reliance on our financial sector and far too little on our industrial base. Manufacturing output has still not recovered to the level seen before the financial crisis of 2008. Some of the statistics refer to are frankly astonishing. For example, around half the value of all UK exports come from manufacturing, yet only 10 per cent of the workforce is employed in this field. The benefits of an active and functioning manufacturing industry are straightforward. A high wage and high employment economy can be created. Export growth can help to provide much-needed financial input and we would see crucial revitalisation of many of our industrial communities that have seen tremendous depression over the past few decades. For example, I think of my own constituency of Midlothian North and Musselborough, which has suffered with the decline of the coal industry. As the ICA pointed out, coal is still in use throughout the British Isles and yet our last colliery closed in December 2015. To remedy the situation, the ICA set out its vision in a series of headline points that I would like to briefly highlight. On the economy, providing an economic context in which industry can prosper and this can be done through mechanisms such as a low exchange rate, low interest rates and business taxations that encourage investment while ensuring companies pay their fair share. On manufacturing, hold the line, don't abandon any more sectors of manufacturing production. We need to encourage the reshoring of production from abroad to ensure that industries such as steel and coal are not allowed to degenerate any further. On trade, welcome free trade but only on the basis of fair competition. We've seen the devastating effects of China's surplus steel being sold at subsidised prices and we must have a sensible approach to dealing with such markets. That includes those countries who do not adhere to environmental obligations or basic workers' rights. On procurement, use public procurement as a tool to support industry. Public sector procurement is one obvious instance where authorities can set an example over engaging with local workers and supply chains. On finance, make sure banks provide long-term finance to British industry. The 2012 introduction of the funding lending scheme may have helped kickstart the economy but banks gave the vast majority of the money to increase mortgage lending. We must incentivise banks to invest in industry for any future such initiatives. Business support exploits the scope to provide aid to industry under current EU rules. We can provide financial support to us training, research, development, environmental compliance and, most important of all, regional aid that can be targeted for our less prosperous economies. On skills, target resources at the high-level technical skills that industry needs. In the manufacturing industry, there is clearly a skill shortage that it needs filled whether through apprenticeship schemes or steps such as the training levy on large employers that will be introduced this April. There are a number of other items here that the ICA also lists that I will not go into. Basically, those are the conclusions that they reached in their industrial strategy publication following an examination of the UK's industrial environment. It would be difficult to disagree with any of them. From a Scottish perspective, the document has been discussed at meetings of the cross-party group on industrial communities and the conclusion was reached that a Scottish dimension is much needed. I encourage the ICA to continue its engagement with the cross-party group in meetings to come and look forward to help developing this with the ICA and cross-party group members. Of course, the ICA and the cross-party group have been working together recently on related topics such as EU funding in a Brexit context. Wherever one starts in Brexit, there is no doubt that we are going through a period of great uncertainty. I am sure that there was much relief when, following research by members of the ICA, it was confirmed by the Scottish Government that EU funding for current Scottish projects will be in place until 2020. Much of that funding has been directed towards our post-industrial areas. We do not yet know what the situation is going to be post-Brexit. Therefore, I see it as a key role of the cross-party group to ensure that the Scottish and UK Governments are kept aware of the risks to such communities if that funding falters. As I previously mentioned, my own constituency is one such post-industrial community and therefore may fall prey to any loss in EU funding. Steps are being taken to improve the circumstances of my constituents, for example through the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city deal. The city deal sees the six local authorities in the region working collectively to bid to the UK and Scottish Governments for £1 billion of funding with the potential for £3.2 billion of private sector investment if the bid proves successful. That funding will be targeted towards infrastructure, skills and innovation with the end result of improvement in our economic performance to allow repayment of the initial Government funds. Our region would benefit from greater economy with public services being delivered more effectively and greater opportunities to tackle inequality and poverty. The statistics for this region clearly display why such an initiative could prove a tremendous success. The region's population of 1.3 million people represents 24 per cent of the total in Scotland and makes a contribution of over £33 billion of gross added value to our economy, equating to around 30 per cent of Scotland's output. If the city deal is successful in its funding bid, we will have the opportunity to make local, flexible decisions that can reignite and improve the region's industrial areas. It could be argued that the deal is not perfect and there are some financial flaws in the plan, but overall it is very much a step in the right direction. To add to this, the cross-party group also has a role to play in bringing together relevant stakeholders who could provide input covering a wide range of interests. Our meetings and discussions can contribute to the debate on how we move forward. The Scottish Government has proven very responsive to the cross-party group correspondence with them and for that I thank them. It is evident that when it comes to something as important as an industrial strategy, we need to be sure that those in power are listening to experts. In this ICA can perhaps help to join up the thinking between the Scottish and UK Governments. I look forward to being an active member of the cross-party group and in the work that it will do in the months and years to come. To conclude, we are now past the stage of examining the effect of the decline of industry. We need new ideas and strategies like the city deals to change the situation. We need to look to the future and for this I warmly welcome the publication of industrial strategy. Speeches of around four minutes, please. I call Dean Lockhart to be followed by Angus MacDonald. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate Colin Beattie on securing this important debate today. The motion being debated raises the fundamental question of the future role of industry and manufacturing in both the Scottish and the UK economies going forward. The report by the Industrial Communities Alliance is a welcome contribution and an important one to the debate on how we can promote manufacturing in post-industrial communities across Scotland and the UK. I congratulate the ICA on this report. The term industrial strategy can mean many different things. During the 1970s, the term became synonymous with the failures of nationalised industries, poorly targeted investment and stalled economic growth. However, there has been, I believe quite rightly, a renaissance in thinking about industrial strategies. In the global context, industrial strategies have been very successfully deployed by Governments in countries as varied as Germany, South Korea and Singapore. At the core of the Industrial Communities Alliance report is the ambition to see a revival in industrial activity in the economies of the midlands, the north, Scotland and Wales. It argues that an effective industrial strategy can enhance competitiveness, help deliver a high wage and high employment economy. I agree with those objectives. Indeed, many of those goals are also encapsulated within the UK Government's industrial strategy green paper published last month. Neil Findlay. As mentioned in Scotland, Wales and other areas of the UK, former coalfield areas and the like, I might be able to reflect on the catastrophic lack of an industrial policy that his party undertook during the 1980s that decimated those industries and is why we need an industrial strategy now. Dean Lockhart. Thank you, Mr Findlay. Obviously, the 1970s preceded the 1980s and it was during the Labour Government of the 1970s that the UK economy had to be bailed out by the IMF, but let's not go over past history. Many of the goals that are encapsulated in the UK Government's green paper on the industrial strategy are consistent with the recommendations of the ICA. The UK Government's industrial strategy sets out a number of measures, including in particular the need to increase technical skills within our workforce and the need for higher levels of innovation in the economy. Those issues have also quite rightly been highlighted in the ICA paper. In relation to a skilled workforce, we need to better train our workforce for high-end manufacturing jobs and we need to ensure that vocational and skills training are aligned to industry and business demand. Scotland and the UK are fortunate to be home of many of the world's top universities that already provide world-leading research and development work. However, the same level investment has not been made in technical and vocational training opportunities. Consequently, in Scotland, we have a shortage of technical skills with Scotland ranking in the third quartile of OECD countries for the proportion of people with technical qualifications. With the decline in manufacturing, the system of apprenticeships also declined. That is a particular issue in Scotland where we still have only half the number of apprenticeships per head of population than the rest of the UK. We agree with the ICA report, which says that the UK Government's apprenticeship scheme was a step in the right direction in this area. We have also urged the Scottish Government to put in place 10,000 additional apprenticeship starts every year by the end of this Parliament. We believe that that is the right policy to increase our skill set and, in turn, prepare the economy for a high growth and a high-wage outturn. Let me turn briefly to innovation. For an advanced economy, higher levels of investment in innovation correlate with faster growth and income levels, both within different regions of the UK and also internationally. R&D leads to the creation of new products and services, more effective processes and higher productivity. In Scotland, the innovation centre programme is a welcome step in the right direction. It brings together industry and universities to address the innovative needs of industries across eight different sectors in Scotland. However, more needs to be done. That is why we welcome the measures set out in the ICA paper and in the UK Government paper, which looks to boost productivity and innovation across the UK. In conclusion, I would highlight the success the UK has had in the car and aerospace manufacturing sectors, with the UK being the second largest car producer in Europe and a global leader in aerospace. That demonstrates that the UK can, with the right approach and the policies in place, compete globally in key industrial sectors. To replicate that success in other sectors, I would urge the Scottish Government to engage constructively with the joint ministerial committee proposed by the UK Government in the green paper so that we can together develop an industrial strategy to address the issues set forth in the motion today. I would like to thank again Colin Beattie for bringing this important debate to the chamber. Angus MacDonald, please, followed by Richard Leonard. I would like to thank my colleague Colin Beattie for bringing this important issue forward to the chamber for a debate, and I welcome the report published by the ICA. Over the decades, we have come to realise that we are only ever one large business closure away from a local crisis. We know that in the 70s and 80s with steel plants, coal mines and car plants being closed, sectors of Scotland's manufacturing industry was in free fall, with the communities reliant on the work provided by these giants filling a degree of dismay, and the effects of that impact can still be felt today. My constituency of Falkirk East is home to some of Scotland's most important sites, the petrochemical manufacturing and refinery sites of Ineos and Petro Ineos in Grangemouth, Laichich by Gael with BP at Cynil Kers on route to Bones, and with other plants such as Syngenta, Callochem and Fujifilm, based in Grangemouth, as well as being Scotland's largest container port, and the only port in the UK to export more than it imports, it is not difficult to recognise Grangemouth's importance to the Scottish and UK economy. The Industrial Strategy for a More Prosperous Fairer Britain report, compiled and published by the ICA, appears to point to an over reliance on the services sector for the UK economy, which is a fair comment. That the UK is one of the major financial hubs of the world is only to be welcomed, however, if the economy is to be based on one sector and we fail to diversify into other areas like manufacturing, we're sleepwalking into another catastrophic economic downturn, the likes of which will without doubt be worse than 2008. However, we should look to the recent past in order to prepare for the challenges of the future. Sixteen years ago, job losses from the petrochemical plant in Grangemouth were looming, and it was recognised that something had to be done to diversify the local economy to protect the area from certain financial disaster. Falkirk Council was led by the SNP at the time with my friend and colleague Councillor David Alexander, the council leader. Together, he, alongside Scottish Enterprise, Forth Valley, the then-BP in Grangemouth launched the Falkirk action plan in 2002, which consisted of four public meetings to find out what the people of Falkirk district wanted for that area. From that action plan, which gathered a range of views from across the district, My Futures in Falkirk was created, a series of 24 targeted programmes designed to tackle the economic situation head on. My Future in Falkirk laid the foundations for the Helix park and now the world's famous Kelpies, bolstering the district's tourism industry, which continues to grow by 5 per cent each year, helping to secure the Falkirk's area's reputation as a place to visit and the place to invest. A key element of My Futures in Falkirk had been that each programme had been built with maximum flexibility in order to overcome changes in the economic and market conditions. For example, Grangemouth's industrial capacity was expanded from a sole manufacturing site to include research and development facilities to create sustainability. Much of the programmes were ambitious, and some may have said at the time that elements of the My Futures in Falkirk were extremely risky, but it was well worth taking the chance and thinking out of the box, and the SNP-led council was prepared to do that. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. We even brought the Royal National Mod to Falkirk, which is said to have never been achievable. Yet in 2008, the mod came home to Falkirk. It came home because the concept of the mod had originated from the annual cattle trist in Falkirk in the 18th and 19th centuries, where gallic-speaking cattle-drovers would meet and sing gallic songs together, creating a festival of gallic culture never before seen in the lowlands. In 2008, the mod brought with it millions of pounds boosting the local economy and the local culture quite substantially. The statistics show that from 2005 until autumn of 2008, Falkirk districts unemployment was below the average rate of Scotland, whereas from 2001 until 2005 the rate was above. Equally, employment in the area had been in decline from 2001 until the advent of My Futures in Falkirk, yet from 2003 until 2007 employment rose in the area. Although the global economic downturn from 2008 onwards had an impact across Scotland, the UK and beyond, the effects of that were not as hard-hitting in Falkirk due to that original foresight in 2002. In fact, the then communities minister and former MSP Wendy Alexander hailed My Futures in Falkirk as the best regeneration scheme that she had ever seen. All of that could not have been possible without further key elements of partnership and the belief that these programmes could be possible. Working together to overcome these challenges worked in Falkirk district and catapulted the area to be recognised as the most enterprising place in Scotland in 2010. I am aware that I am well out of time, so I am closing much of the ethos and belief central to the success of My Futures in Falkirk and now Invest Falkirk can be transferred to other communities around the country. I would certainly encourage colleagues from across the chamber to take note of the change in their areas. Thank you. I have Richard Leonard, please. We are followed by Kate Forbes. Thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I add my thanks to Colin Beattie for placing this motion before Parliament? Can I thank Steve Fothergill and his team at the Industrial Communities Alliance for putting together this credible, radical and compelling strategy for reindustrialisation and rebalancing of the economy? He is a modest man, so let me say that, down the years, Steve Fothergill has published some groundbreaking research, not least in uncovering the real rate of chronic long-term unemployment in our former industrial cities, towns and villages, the very communities the Alliance so effectively represents. That is why I would like to start by asking the Cabinet Secretary to go back and look at that research into the real rate of unemployment so that, instead of telling us how resilient the Scottish labour market is every month when the Scottish claimant count and unemployment rate is announced, he asks instead what his Government can do to address this long-term and deep-seated but hidden unemployment, which still scars many of the communities that we represent in the industrial communities cross-party group. If we add, as I believe we should add, those people listed as economically inactive but who want to work to the claimant and unemployment count, today's real unemployment rate in Scotland is nearer 9 per cent and 10 per cent than the 5 per cent official figure would have you believe. If you were to add as well, those people who work part-time or are in temporary work who want permanent work, the rate would be even higher still. As Steve Fothergill and his fellow researchers have shown time after time, the profound inequalities in this, the real rate of unemployment, the unequal burden of unemployment between the best and the worst parts of Scotland is far greater as well than the official figures would lead us to believe. For example, in 2014, they calculated that real unemployment rates in the former Coalfield communities of Fife, Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, which I represent, was above 15 per cent compared to an average real rate of just 11 per cent. So, if ever there was a case for a new industrial strategy, it is this and the human stories which lie behind those statistics. Datasets obtained for me recently by SPICE show that in 1979, the year Margaret Thatcher came to power, over 600,000 people worked in manufacturing in Scotland. Today, the figure is around about 200,000 or 8.6 per cent of the workforce, which is precisely why this report argues that our economy is fundamentally unbalanced and we know from this SPICE data too that productivity in Scotland is below the UK average. We know that expenditure on R&D by businesses is almost half the UK average and we know that industrial investment too in the private sector in Scotland lags behind the UK average. That is why it is right that Colin Beattie, in his motion, calls for a Scottish dimension. We need a strategy for industry in Scotland, which is long-term, not short-term, including long-term support for investment and innovation, one that addresses the very real problem that Scotland has become too much of a branch plant economy. We need a strategy to embrace democratic economic planning too, so that job opportunities created, for example, by the Scottish Government's goal to tackle climate change, bring jobs to our local communities. The strategy must also advance democracy and equality in the economy, so that both the proper role of trade unions as representatives of workers in the economy is recognised and that women, all too often shut out of the corridors of economic power are finally let in. Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I warmly welcome this report, this very important contribution to this important debate, and I hope that the document that we are discussing this afternoon helps this Parliament and this Government to consider how it can use those powers that it has got to further the horizons of working people in this country and so to bring back hope that we are sent here to serve. Kate Forbes, followed by Liam Kerr. I see my role in this Parliament to make a small contribution to making the Highlands a place to live, work and do business. I would say that this report, which other speakers have eloquently praised, also contributes to how we do that. We have seen quite a lot of investment and economic activity in the Highlands in recent months, and it shows that that is exactly what the Highlands is becoming. It is fantastic news for those of us who call the Highlands home. Yesterday alone, in the constituency of Skylachaber and Badnuch, planning has been approved for 50 new houses on the Black Isle and an £80 million fish food processing plant on Sky, which will create 55 new jobs. That is off the back of a fantastic development in the last few months, and it has given a great boost to industry in the Highlands. That is the handover, the sale of the Lachaber smelter. Lachaber has long been famed as the home of the Lachaber smelter based in Kinlachleven, and for William, in fact, Kinlachleven was almost named Alluminiumville. What has been great about the last six months as it demonstrates that investment in industry in the Highlands and its history is starting to pick up? That report talks about the drive and determination that is required to bring about a sustainable revival of industry. I would like to stand here as an MSP who has seen that begin to happen in Lachaber, in the West Highlands, in an area that sees industry not just in terms of the jobs and the income that is generated from those jobs, but also in terms of the impact on communities. That report identifies that. The Lachaber Alluminium smelter in my constituency epitomises what we are trying to achieve across the country. It shows that we can keep industrial jobs as well as contribute to local communities, to education, to the environment. If we look at what is happening in Fort William, the decision to safeguard 50 jobs and to create potentially hundreds of more jobs will have a brilliant knock-on effect on housing, which is a serious issue, on transport, which is an issue that has been raised with me a number of times on education, to pick up on the issue of education. The West Highland College, which is part of the University of the Highlands and Islands, has been doing great things over the last few years. The need now for the expertise and the training in Fort William to be able to source the people for the new jobs will mean that West Highland College, the University of the Highlands, will have a great opportunity to expand its courses and to encourage more people not only to stay in the West Highlands to study but to attract more people in and make Fort William a place of excellence and expertise in training for industrial jobs and opportunities. I think that in the West Highlands we are seeing a new chapter when the decision was made. I thought that this recent takeover would rewrite the future of Fort William and Lochaber. It has restored community pride to the area and through that commitment that we saw in that situation to an effective and sustainable industrial strategy locally. I think that if we replicate that across Scotland we can rewrite the industrial future of Scotland and seek that restoration of community spirit and community pride that was once so characteristic of industrial towns and cities, the length and breadth of the nation. Liam Kerr to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. My congratulations also to Colin Beattie for securing a member's business debate today. As he said, it's a very timely debate and extremely pertinent to the circumstances we as a nation find ourselves in. As we look towards a Britain outside the European Union we need to plan for the future and work to build a country in which future generations have the chance to do better than their parents and their grandparents. That is why we also warmly welcome the creation of the industrial strategy for a more prosperous, fairer Britain by the Industrial Communities Alliance. They say it is wrong to think of industry as something from the past. We agree. They say an effective industrial strategy can enhance competitiveness and help deliver a high wage high employment economy. We agree. They say a revival in British industry would be especially beneficial to the economies of the Midlands, the North Scotland and Wales. We unequivocally agree. That report is a significant step forward and the context of the debate has indeed been set. That is why I was pleased to see in January the Prime Minister launch the UK's modern industrial strategy as a critical part of the British Government's plan for a post Brexit Britain. It's aim is to deliver a stronger economy and a fairer society where wealth and opportunity have spread across every community in our United Kingdom, not concentrated in London and the South East. The strategy will help young people to develop the skills they need to deliver a high wage, high employment economy of the future. The same young people doing the same jobs in the same areas that the Industrial Communities Alliance represent and call for. The Government tackles directly the call by the Alliance to develop regulatory regimes that ensure the protection of workers, consumers and the environment but do not hinder investment and growth. The strategy heralds a new approach. It's not about, quote, stepping back and leaving business to get on with the job, but stepping up to a new active role that backs business and ensures more people in all corners of the country sharing the benefits of its success. It is hard to see many areas that the UK Government and the Industrial Communities Alliance differ in their aims for the future of the industry. Indeed, where the report calls for improvements in research and development in this country and claims that we too often fall down on the transfer of knowledge and innovation from the laboratory to the shop floor, so the strategy acknowledges that. Although British excellence and key technologies research, disciplines and institutions give competitive advantage, we must maintain strength and invest in our research and development programmes in institutions. I think that the Alliance must be pleased with the new strategy as outlined by the Government. In fact, just by having one, one of the main demands of the Alliance has already been met. So Mr Beattie's motion is a good one. I do note the motion suggests that the Industrial Community Alliance would benefit from a Scottish dimension. I also note that the report is a report on the situation in the UK as a whole, just as the Government's industrial strategy is a plan for the UK as a whole. But I also note the industrial community's alliance is made up of local councils from across the country, including 15 from Scotland, which I would argue does give a Scottish dimension to the report, but I do accept Richard Leonard to make some very salient points in that regard in his submission. To conclude, I welcome the report from the industrial community's alliance. I find much to agree with in Colin Beattie's motion. The document does indeed provide a context for debate and I agree that the adoption of an effective industrial strategy would enhance competitiveness and help to deliver a high wage, high employment economy. Which is why I am pleased that the UK Government has produced a modern industrial strategy for the UK. They are both plans for the future with explicit objectives to improve living standards and economic growth by increasing productivity and driving growth across the whole country. It is no small task and will take years of hard work. So I look forward to the chamber, the Scottish Government, the UK Government, the industrial community's alliance and all stakeholders across the country working together to turn that vision into a reality. The last of the open speeches is Neil Findlay. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Again, I congratulate Colin Beattie on bringing this debate forward and to the Alliance for the Publication of the document. I think that it is an excellent piece of work identifying the key imbalance in the country's economy. It shows only too clearly how the policies in the financial sector and repeated undermining of the manufacturing sector has left us with far too many low-paid, insecure jobs, particularly in former industrial areas and coal fuel areas like parts of Midlothian and Westlothian in my region and Lanarkshire, Fife, Ayrshire and other similar areas across the UK. A combination of the fallout from the global financial crisis and an EU and IMF response that saw austerity sweep the continent as a key tool of economic policy combined with a shrinking of industrial capacity and a de-skilling of large sections of our community has, in my view, gone a long way to create the conditions that we now see across Europe and the US where people in former industrial communities seek answers in the simplistic solutions of economic nationalism. Here we see coal, electronics paper, oil, food and textile companies all going to the wall and the main response we've seen is the offer to send in the PACE team to help people find new jobs and write CVs as good as that is. That's not an industrial strategy. We need to create jobs and prevent job losses before that. We need to stop people becoming unemployed so we need an active industrial strategy. That has to be as the report says about a much more co-ordinated approach around procurement, investment, planning skills, R&D, Government investment, financing, infrastructure and much much more. While there are many questions that need to be answered about Brexit and whether we take them opportunities too in the negotiations the right to provide state aid to industries and sectors has to be a priority as is the right to determine our own procurement policy to deliver apprenticeships, skills end bogus self-employment, end zero hours contracts, pay decent wages those have to be policy objectives and these are just some examples of areas where governments I mean all colours have hidden behind EU procurement or state aid rules to avoid making progressive decisions. I believe we need to support the transition to a greener economy and one where technology enhances and supports us all to live more fulfilling lives and an active industrial policy is part of that. I think one of the greatest missed opportunities in Scotland has been wind energy. We should have had turbines financed, built, owned and operated in this country. Communities and public bodies could have developed all of this in a truly sustainable way but instead we've seen the kit built abroad and we see the ownership of many of our wind farms under the ownership of foreign multi nationals such as venture capital firms or wealthy individuals with the profits floating off with every turn of the turbine to the boardrooms of Paris, Bonn, Amsterdam and elsewhere. If ever there was an absence of planning and industrial policy then this is it and I think there are similar comments we could make about the fourth crossing. Time doesn't allow me to go into many of the other economic aspects of the report and I hope that maybe we can do that some other time. But we don't make the mistakes repeat the mistakes of the past like were made under Mr Lockhart's party's rule in the 1980s. I think we have to learn from this document and use it to put pressure on the Scottish and UK Governments to deliver full employment because that for me should be the key economic policy of any Government. I call Keith Brown to respond to the debate and let's please, cabinet secretary. Thank you also to Colin Beattie for lodging this motion and highlighting the importance of industry to the Scottish economy and also for Colin Beattie's work with the cross-party group that I've met with her on a number of occasions including some of those in the gallery tonight. The Scottish Government has a clear approach to industrial policy including the overarching framework of our economic strategy plus the reforms and actions in our manufacturing action plan in support of our ambitions for a sustainable and inclusive economy. You and I are probably one of the few members here that remember when these debates were consensual debates. That was the nature of them in the past and obviously we've moved well beyond that and we've had in particular two contributions one from Dean Lockhart and one from Richard Leonard which are like to me two cheeks of the same rather sour face in terms of the sniping in terms of the Scottish Government. I think it's worth saying though that, by Richard Leonard at one point, the approach of the Scottish Government is in marked contrast to the approach of successive UK Governments. For decades now, whether it's the 70s, the 80s, the 90s or subsequently, they've been content to sit back while industrial outputs and employment have fallen. If you look at, for example, the primary steel industry which you've mentioned by a number of members that employed 320,000 people in 1971 compared to 21,000 people in 2015, and if you think about that, nearly a third of a million jobs gone in just over 40 years and that loss concentrated in a small number of communities. As recently as September 2015, we saw the closure of the red car steel plant with a loss of 1,700 jobs and the UK Government did nothing to prevent that. Also in relation to some of the points raised by Richard Leonard on employment, I don't disagree about the underemployment point that we acknowledged at every point. The economically active numbers are there and produced as well. They can't be added to the claiming count, that wouldn't make sense, but I think that they are an important factor, I do agree with that. It would be good to have a bit of balance to recognise that around 4.9 per cent the current unemployment rate, still too high, is substantially below the figures that we had in the 70s, 80s and 90s and in many years subsequently. Almost identical, the Conservatives said in a second that it is substantially above the UK level. It is almost identical to the UK level in fact. As it is indeed, I will come back to Richard Leonard shortly, but the productivity point that he raised where he said that the Scottish productivity was substantially below the UK productivity levels this week, within the last week we have seen him almost match within less than 1 per cent for the first time what we inherited from the Government which he supported in 2007 with a 7 per cent differential that has now been closed virtually. Richard Leonard. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. He's made this point before about record levels of unemployment, so I checked. In the years 2005 and 2006 the level of recorded unemployment was exactly the same as it is now. You can go back to the mid-1970s before the de-industrialisation escalated into the 1980s and see as well the figures are comparable to those today. We are not living in record low unemployment times. In fact, if you go back before the 70s it is substantially lower than the unemployment levels that are recorded at the moment. I'll give you some extra time for that long intervention. Thank you, Richard Leonard. I never said record employment levels. I didn't make that point. Previously it may have been mentioned, but I recognise that it's not a record. I also recognise the figures that Richard Leonard mentioned from 2005. What he is missing out is a late 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and subsequently in many years. He's picked out one or two years, look at the other years and see the level of unemployment that previous Governments have been content to see. The First Minister, as has been mentioned immediately established in relation to one of the industrial closures that we were about to suffer in relation to Tata, the two steel plants in Clyde bridge. The First Minister immediately established a task force partnership between central and local government, local politicians of all hues, trade unions and industry to do whatever could be done to save those plants and look after the men and women whose jobs depended on those plants staying open. When the possibility of a deal emerged which took a great deal of work we didn't leave it to market forces the term on the outcome, we intervened acting as honest broker to ensure the deal went ahead and went ahead as quickly as possible and the intention was to sell off the aluminium smelter and folk wheeling. We acted, we didn't stand back as previous Governments have done. We helped to provide the guarantees necessary for our new owner to step forward, a new owner with plans not just to save the smelter but to expand manufacturing and bring in much needed and highly skilled manufacturing jobs. I could also mention of course the work that we did with Ferguson's to make sure that shipbuilding stayed at that part of the Clyde. Despite all that there of course are clouds on the horizon and actually it threatens Scotland's current position in the European single market and hence of course it affects Scotland's national interests as well. I was almost ready to agree with Neil Findlay's characterisation about the effect of deindustrialisation in the United States and the extent to which that lead people to find wrong answers. When somebody is like a UKIP or a hard Brexiteer himself starts talking in derogatory terms about economic nationalism I just couldn't really understand why he didn't make the connection between those two particular outlooks hard Brexit which he supports and economic nationalism. Of course the hard Brexit would damage jobs and living standards deeply and permanently. Do you have time? Neil Findlay. I don't know where he's getting this that I support a hard Brexit that is not what I've ever said. What I'm saying is that we should not pretend that everything that comes with Brexit is a negative. If we have the right mindset and we have a decent negotiation of the conditions of that we can do things that would positively be an advantage to our proactive industrial policy. To deny that is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Keith Brown. Once again, we do have some common ground in relation to this. You're right to say that there's points in looking at the opportunities whatever the scenario that you're involved in and the threats. The idea that you're going to condemn economic nationalism in United States and support Brexit to me just doesn't make sense. Under a hard Brexit, Scottish GDP could be about £11 billion per year lower by 2030. Under a hard Brexit, resources for public spending could be up to £3.7 billion a year lower. You can, Cabinet Secretary. I'm rather enjoying this. Dean Lockhart. As we are. The cabinet secretary seems to be blaming Brexit for all the economic woes. Can I remind him that the underperformance of the Scottish economy dates back to 10 years when this Government took control? For every year bar 2, the Scottish economy has underperformed the rest of the UK. The UK right now is the fastest growing economy in the G7 at over 2 per cent growth while in Scotland economic growth under the SNP is 0.7 per cent. How is that got anything to do with Brexit? I think that has to be the last intervention, Cabinet Secretary. Once again, I think that the reason why I discount much of the commentary that I get from Dean Lockhart in relation to economic situation in Scotland is because he continues to deny the fact while apart from the fact that he's a Tory continues to deny the fact that there are two active Governments in the Scottish economy. Look at the report that we are considering tonight. What specific recommendations makes reference to? What could make an effective industrial policy? Exchange rates, interest rates, a measured approach to deficit reduction, regulatory regimes for the protection of workers and business taxation, all powers held by the UK Government which he denies has any impact on the economic performance here in Scotland whether it's in terms of unemployment whether it's in terms of growth the UK Government is complicit and yet they never acknowledge or accept that responsibility in making. No, Mr Lockhart. In relation to the UK Prime Minister who suggested the way to avoid this is to turn the back of the clock, go back to a low tax, low regulation economy with the associated loss of workers' rights, the environmental and social protections and public services that we fought so hard for but we cannot hope to compete with and we would not want to compete. Mr Tomkins, you weren't in, sorry Cabinet Secretary, you didn't take part in the debate nor pressure button to make a role yelling. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for that timely intervention. We can't hope to compete with the low-wage, low-value industries in some other parts of the world. We have to rekindle the spirit and I agree with many members who have made this point across the chamber with the spirit of innovation of James Watt, Thomas Telford and James Clark-Maxwell. To do that, we need innovation, the finance to follow through that innovation and a skilled workforce. We need new products, new processes driving up the value of our industrial output and that's why we have the manufacturing action plan for Scotland with its comprehensive proposals for action. That's why we created the innovation centre programme, which team Lockhart to be fair mentioned positively in his speech and that's why we are actively progressing plans for the national manufacturing institute for Scotland. Finance is absolutely crucial as the report makes clear and we have to create the environment for our innovators, entrepreneurs and SMEs to flourish. Our SME holding fund utilising European funding will be available after Brexit and provides microcredit finance up to £25,000, loans up to £100,000 and equity investment up to £2 million. We have established and bringing forward the £500 million Scottish growth scheme to provide investment guarantees and some loans of up to £5 million. Skilled workforce mentioned by members is also absolutely crucial, so we continue to invest in our successful modern apprenticeship programme on target to achieve 26,000 new starts in 2016-17 and on track to meet our target of 30,000 starts by the last year of this parliamentary session. In closing, I once again thank Colin Beattie for lodging this motion and for giving us the opportunity to have a lively debate and to highlight the work that we are doing in Scotland to adapt our industries to the challenges that lie ahead. Thank you. This meeting is closed.