S3M-3584 National Planning Framework

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 5 March 2009

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:15]

... ... ...

National Planning Framework

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3584, in the name of Duncan McNeil, on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee, on "National Planning Framework for Scotland 2: Proposed Framework". The debate is fully subscribed and there is no spare time, so I will stop members at the end of their allotted time.

14:56

... ... ...

16:41

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):





It has often been said that one can never have too much of a good thing.

I thank Parliament for the speeches that have been made by members of all parties. It has genuinely been a debate in which there has been a large measure of agreement, if not unanimity. Nonetheless, members have raised quite a lot of substantive points, and I will attempt to deal with as many of them as I can in my concluding remarks. Those that I do not deal with will be taken account of as part of our review of everything that has been said in the Parliament. Peter Peacock asked if I could respond to any points that I did not deal with in my summing up by writing to him. I would be happy to do the same for anyone else who wishes me to, by interacting in what I hope is a consensual and inclusive manner.

Let me put the national planning framework in context. It is about taking forward the spatial aspects of the Government's economic strategy and fleshing out a number of our commitments on climate change, renewable energy and waste management. It sets a long-term vision for the spatial dimension and provides the opportunity to align strategic investment.

A number of members, starting with the Local Government and Communities Committee's convener, Duncan McNeil, raised the issue of consultation. I fully acknowledge that lessons can be learned every time we interact with the people whom we serve, and we will seek to do that. I make the general point that only on a few occasions has a Government sought to contact all the community councils in Scotland, even though they are statutory bodies. We had substantial engagement. Duncan McNeil asked for a debrief of inputs, which it is proper for us to consider.

In response to the point that the framework needs to be more flexible, I make the point that it contains 12 projects, four of which are public sector and eight of which are private sector. To some extent, we are creating a spatial framework for the future but, by and large, they ain't our projects. Others will have to progress them. Will we attach the appropriate priority to each of the projects as they come forward? Yes, of course we will. We have given pretty clear indications on the Forth crossing, the west of Scotland rail enhancements, the strategic drainage project in Glasgow and the 2014 Commonwealth games, for which we are responsible. The timetable for our projects is relatively well understood.

Des McNulty talked about finance and timing. Raising that is perfectly proper, but the document is of course about planning, so it would be unusual for it to talk about finance, which we will deal with in another way.

Des McNulty also focused on the west of Scotland rail infrastructure. I agree that including that in the framework is right because, if we are to deliver the infrastructure to include high-speed rail and the additional capacity that we want in the west of Scotland, significant infrastructure changes will be required in the Glasgow area.

Like other members, Des McNulty made a plea for more references to cycling, walking and microgeneration. We will see whether the final document can pick up those comments. He also suggested that opportunities for discussion had been lacking. I suspect that we will never stop feeling that we have more to say about this major subject.

Alison McInnes picked up on the north-east's expertise in carbon capture and on the geographic advantage of Peterhead power station, which is in our shared constituency. That power station is adjacent to the Miller sour-gas field, whose pipework makes it particularly appropriate for the sequestration of carbon dioxide.

Malcolm Chisholm—not Malcolm Rifkind, which one of my colleagues inadvertently called him, to my alarm—made several points. I make the general comment that many of Malcolm Chisholm's concerns relate to matters in which the planning system is already engaged. He threw in the lock gates at Leith. I must bring my family into every debate—that is compulsory—so I mention that my grandfather Alexander MacGregor was a lock gate keeper at Leith, so I might know more about the subject than the member imagines.

Malcolm Chisholm referred to Clare Symonds's interviews of 11 people who were involved in the consultation. We must give weight to what she said, because it was augmented by further research, but we must acknowledge that thousands of people were involved in the consultation.

Alex Johnstone, among others, mentioned high-speed rail. Several hundred flights a day take place between central Scotland and London. Everywhere that high-speed rail is introduced, the number of such flights withers. I suspect that we would be no different.

Patrick Harvie: Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson: I am sorry—I do not have time.

Rob Gibson said that the framework was, inevitably, imperfect. I say that it is better to aim for perfection and miss than to aim for mediocrity and hit it bang on. I do not accept that the framework is imperfect, but we will always seek to do better—I see that that comment got the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth.

Rob Gibson also talked about Pentland Power, which is important.

Peter Peacock raised a wide range of issues, to some of which I will have to respond in writing. Scapa Flow is very important. He made interesting points about the Cromarty Firth. On the A96, I will supplement my answer at question time. The reference to Tornagrain does not short-circuit the planning process, because the project is not designated as a national development. We will consider everything that has been said about that.

Mary Scanlon: Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson: I will do so if the intervention is very brief.

Mary Scanlon: My intervention will be almost as brief as was the minister's reply to me at question time. Given that I received a one-word reply of "Yes", I seek further clarity in writing about Tornagrain.

Stewart Stevenson: If the member wishes to have that, I am happy to write to her. We will pursue that later.

Shirley-Anne Somerville said that no second runway at Edinburgh airport is proposed. We will see, but we do not provide for that in the framework.

Patrick Harvie said that the replacement Forth crossing will be road only, but that is not the case. We have designed the hard shoulders for other uses in the future.

Iain Smith referred to high-speed rail. We are certainly happy to think about his comment.

We had huge consultation on the document, which was interesting. We have had a terrific debate. Jim Tolson managed to make a similar speech to a previous speech, in which he said that one day's notice of publication of the discussion draft was given. The discussion draft was published in January 2008—one year ago. As with the STPR, the consultation has not been slim.

Ladies and gentlemen, Presiding Officer, I thank the three committees for their work and look forward with interest to how we will vote at 5 o'clock.

16:50