Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 07 Oct 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Official Report 205KB pdf

---

National Planning Framework

Item 6 is consideration of paper TIC/S3/08/18/4, on our approach to the national planning framework 2, the final draft of which is expected soon. Do members have any initial comments or questions on the paper?

We know what the proposed nine projects are, but given current world economic circumstances, I wonder whether they might change somewhat. We should take evidence on the necessity of certain projects. Do we need to take evidence on the extension of airports and the like, given that they will obviously be hit by what is going on now and are likely to be hit in the future? I am in your hands as far as that suggestion is concerned, convener.

If we are to consider the projects in detail, there might be an opportunity to scope whether the subject matter should be expanded in some cases. I refer to my question to the First Minister last Thursday about the Scapa Flow container transhipment facility and the use of the whole Pentland Firth area. I agree that we need to call witnesses and question them, but we need a steer about what the Government is going to do so that we know which projects to focus on.

The Government has played its cards fairly close to its chest—at least, it has done every time that I have asked it about the matter. You might think about having a go yourself and giving us any information that you find.

I agree that we need to hear evidence from witnesses. We will know which projects are to be designated as national developments when the final draft is produced. I expect and intend to allow questions on the principle of the need for those developments. I do not regard that as something that we can exclude. There is an issue about whether they can legitimately be identified as national developments, but there is also a role for us to take a view on the need for them in principle.

It is important that the committee considers the whole issue. Looking at the list of projects, I wonder whether we need further information. I know that time is short, but we could use reporters to gather more information before the committee takes evidence. Perhaps we need to consider some of the issues in more detail. A number of them are important to the economy and to Scotland as a whole. I would like to see a bit more detail rather than simply having one or two sessions with ministers and others.

When I read paragraph 7 in the paper, I was surprised, because my understanding of the national planning framework mechanism that was introduced is that, when projects that are identified in the framework go through the planning process, there will be a light touch because they are deemed to be national priorities. However, the corollary is that the rationale for those projects going ahead—and indeed for their being included in the national planning framework—needs to be rigorously scrutinised by the Parliament. In other words, we need to consider the projects and, provided that we are satisfied in principle that they are in Scotland's best interest, that parliamentary scrutiny, together with ministerial decision making, would signal that they could go through a foreshortened detailed planning inquiry. That was the principle on which the national planning framework was set up.

If paragraph 7 of the paper reflects the Scottish Government's interpretation of the process, it is at variance with my understanding of the mechanism. I had thought that there was an absolute requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of the projects that were identified as national developments and that the Scottish Government would have to convince us that they were the correct projects and were required.

That is why I said a few moments ago that I intended to allow questions on the need for specific developments. I feel that it is important that we express a view on that.

With respect, it goes beyond allowing questions on the principle in the committee. We are not the lead committee, so perhaps we need to raise the matter with Duncan McNeil, the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee. We should be clear about what we expect. We need to establish that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of the projects that are identified in the paper and that the Government understands that that is a mechanism for the scrutiny of the national planning framework. It is not a question of your individual decision, convener; we need to be clear as a Parliament about how we will handle the matter.

I said that I intended to allow questions on the need for the projects because the paper could be interpreted as suggesting that that is not within the committee's remit. I agree strongly with your argument that the Parliament needs to scrutinise the national planning framework robustly. In fact, in the Communities Committee in the previous parliamentary session, there was a substantial debate about the nature of the parliamentary scrutiny that was written into the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. Some members felt that it should be stronger and some felt that it should be weaker. We are in the middle ground: ministers will sign off the national planning framework, but the Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise it for 60 days and will then have a vote. However, the vote will not be legally binding and ministers will still have the authority to sign off the framework.

Because it will be difficult—perhaps impossible—for any objector to challenge a national development on the basis of need once it is included in the national planning framework, it is necessary that the Parliament examine thoroughly the need for the developments. I do not disagree with you. However, it is perhaps interesting to note that, when it was proposed that the Parliament itself should have the authority to approve or reject the NPF, it was argued that ministers represent a Government, that they therefore have a majority and that that is their democratic mandate. That is the basis on which the proposal to give the Parliament the authority to approve the NPF was rejected, but it is clearly not the situation now. In going through the process for the first time, we could express a view about whether its operation needs to be refined.

To answer your other point, there was some discussion with Duncan McNeil well in advance of the matter coming to the committee, and I am sure that we will be able to continue that.

One of the key issues is the budgetary capacity of the Scottish Government, or Scotland in general, to afford each or any of the projects. The last estimate that I saw for the replacement Forth crossing was £4.2 billion. I would not find it acceptable to have a discussion about the national planning framework that was not linked to some broad indication from the Scottish Government of the affordability of the projects. One could make an endless list of projects that are inherently desirable, but if none of them is actually deliverable—or if only a few are—the planning framework is being produced in an unrealistic context. It is central that the Government contextualise it in the budget choices that are being made or the priorities that are being set and the timescales that are involved.

The Scottish Government has made a great deal of its commitment to climate change targets but, as you and I have said, convener, we need to have a realistic short-to-medium term framework in which to deal with the matter. In that context, ministers will have to detail the extent to which the projects contribute towards—or do not contribute towards—meeting climate change objectives. It would be absolutely inconsistent of us to spend half the year talking about the climate change bill and ways of combating climate change in Scotland without having that discussion in the context of the set of proposals that deal with our long-term infrastructure demands. We should signal the fact that climate change considerations will form an element of our analysis of the proposals, and that ministers better have something to say about that.

I do not think that anyone will dissent from that view. Paragraph 8 makes it clear that sustainable development and climate change are issues on which we will have to spend some time focusing in relation to the NPF. The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 also places on the Government a duty to develop the NPF with a view to contributing to sustainable development. Scrutiny of that aspect by this committee and other committees will be important.

Do members agree to take evidence on the final draft of NPF 2, once it has been prepared?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to delegate to me decisions on witnesses and the scheduling of evidence, in light of the timing?

Members indicated agreement.

Obviously, if members have specific comments or suggestions to make, my door is always open.

Item 7 on the agenda will be taken in private.

Meeting continued in private until 15:51.