Aberdeen City Council (Union Terrace Gardens)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02246, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on Aberdeen City Council.
10:30
I have lodged the motion because the referendums that have been run in Aberdeen have national implications. The referendums have been on what is, at heart, a local planning issue, but it is appropriate that we debate the wider context.
The first important question to debate is about when and how referendums should be used to inform public policy choices. This is the third test of public opinion on the matter in Aberdeen. Some 14,000 people responded to the original consultation in 2010 and their views were ignored. Thousands more expressed a view on the six shortlisted designs only a few months ago, and their views were ignored too. This time, a majority of postal voters were against the scheme, and even after online and telephone votes were included, 48 per cent of people said no to the proposal. The claim that the vote reflects public opinion lacks credibility and discredits the whole referendum process.
If the vote had gone in the other direction, would Sarah Boyack still have brought the debate to the chamber today?
Absolutely, because the context is that the people of Scotland are due to cast, sometime soon—date to be decided—their biggest-ever vote, so we need to ensure that the rules on referendums are fair, transparent and consistent. The matter goes to the heart of the Parliament.
I find it interesting that the Scottish National Party wants to delete from the motion the phrase “opinion remains divided”, because opinion indeed remains divided.
Will the member give way on that point?
No, I think that we will just get on, thank you very much.
The referendum was held without the agreement of all the parties in the council, and there were no effective controls on spending on the campaign. We have profound concerns about how the proposals were communicated and how the referendum was conducted. The decision on the shape of development in Union Terrace gardens should be taken by those who were elected to run the city—its councillors—with the Scottish Government being involved as appropriate, in accordance with our planning system. I will come back to that point.
Whoever leads the city council after the elections in May will have to take responsibility for major decisions, including whether the council should borrow £92 million to take forward the scheme, and they will not be able to hide behind the votes that were cast last week if they get it wrong. Press comments from SNP councillors in Aberdeen suggest that they want to close down the debate. Voters are entitled to know what decisions councillors are likely to make if they are successful in May, whichever party those councillors represent.
There is, of course, no statutory framework for local referendums—I suspect that that is one thing on which we in this chamber can all agree. In recent years other referendums have been held, notably by Strathclyde Regional Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. In both cases, a proposition was outlined and a clear system of voting was agreed in advance. I believe that there are sufficient concerns about the robustness of the process conducted in Aberdeen to warrant all parties giving some thought to how agreement can be reached on local referendums and to establish clear principles to be followed in all cases.
In making that call, I make it absolutely clear that I do not attach blame to the independent counting officer, who has produced clear and useful recommendations regarding the lessons that need to be learned from the process. He stated:
“I had to establish the rules myself”,
and he called on the Scottish Government to establish a framework. Let us be clear: he did the best that he could, but there was no framework that he could use. Will the minister now take up that issue, and conduct a review of how referendums should operate?
There is a wider issue here, which we should all consider. The counting officer said that he
“did not have the legal clout”
that he would have had in an election, in particular to ensure that money was spent influencing voters only by those who had registered to be part of the referendum campaign.
In addition, insufficient provision was made to regulate the campaigns that were run for and against the proposals, and no effective limit was placed on spending to support either side. What registered campaign groups could spend was limited, but it is clear that money was also spent by non-registered persons, and there was absolutely nothing that the counting officer could do about that. That crucial point is why we have brought the issue to the chamber, and it must be addressed in the interests of fairness and transparency.
If the issue is crucial and central to the debate, why is it not addressed in the member’s motion?
Actually, it is in our motion. Our concerns are central to the motion, and we are clear that we want the minister to consider taking the matter forward.
The referendum was novel in other ways. Online and telephone voting were permitted, and they produced an outcome that was different from that of the postal ballot. The methods were not secure. Anyone who opened an envelope that contained a voter’s ballot number would obtain the unique identifying number, which was all that was needed to record a vote. In a city with hundreds of tenement blocks and thousands of students in student residences, the potential for electoral fraud was clear. The police were called in to investigate on more than one occasion, although apparently no one has been charged so far. Ballot papers were also sent to everyone on the relevant electoral register, regardless of age, so that most 17-year-olds and some 16-year-olds were offered a vote, but some 17-year-olds and most 16-year-olds were not.
Does the member have any evidence whatsoever that the vote was not secure or solid, or is she just engaging in idle speculation and scaremongering?
All that I need to report is that complaints have been made. Surely that is enough. That is why we need an investigation.
I thought that the member wanted to intervene on the point that I was making about 16 and 17-year-olds and the robustness of that process. It is funny that he did not want to intervene on that, particularly given the Electoral Commission’s comments this morning.
It was argued that the scheme would not require the council to spend money on it because of the nature of tax increment financing, but that approach is predicated on using £92 million of the council’s prudential borrowing capacity. It is ironic that the council dropped the original proposals, which were to transform Union Terrace gardens with the building of a contemporary arts centre, because Peacock Visual Arts did not have the whole financial package in place when the alternative scheme came along. The money that was required then was around £4 million, which is a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of the current set of proposals.
The member is right to point out that Peacock Visual Arts did not have the entire package in place at that point, but that is not the reason why it does not feature now. It decided to remove itself from the process at that point because it would not talk to anyone else.
I am sure that the member will have time to comment on that later in the debate, but my understanding is that the council did not want to progress that scheme, and that is why it is sitting—[Interruption.] The member will no doubt want to talk to us in great detail about that issue later.
There is not only the £92 million; there is also the £20 million assumed funding support for Aberdeen art gallery. Then there are the opportunity costs. As my colleague Sandra Macdonald made clear at the weekend, there are also the costs of managing such a major project, with council staff running the procurement process. Time and resources must be spent on the project rather than on other council priorities, including education. That is even before the unanswered question of how the revenue costs of managing the proposed new facilities at Union Terrace gardens are to be met and by whom is addressed.
Our other concern is about the nature of the TIF scheme that is being proposed. We are fully supportive of the principles of TIF where schemes are credible and where they meet the relevant criteria. Will the minister confirm that the Scottish Futures Trust did not recommend that the TIF bid be supported? Will he confirm that it was ministers who wanted the project to be taken forward as part of the TIF programme? That is hardly appropriate, as the Scottish Government is potentially the final arbiter in planning decisions. We simply cannot see how the project stacks up financially. Audit Scotland has also expressed concern about the risk that is attached to the project.
It appears that driving the Scottish Government’s decision making in the case has been the idea to approve it regardless. The First Minister has already said this week that the TIF proposal will be looked on favourably. How will the Scottish Government be able to be objective if there is any planning challenge to the project? Given that it is the final arbiter for planning decisions where there is a direct council interest, surely the project will end up on the minister’s desk.
You must begin to conclude, Ms Boyack.
I have 10 minutes.
The last time that a project in the north-east was given the same treatment, similar questions were asked. As we all know, that project has now stalled, because Donald Trump thinks that he has a veto over the Scottish Government’s energy proposals.
The referendum on the Union Terrace gardens proposal will not be the end of the story.
Your 10 minutes are up, Ms Boyack.
I hope that members will vote for our motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that a local referendum held by Aberdeen City Council to test public opinion on a proposal for development at Union Terrace Gardens confirmed that opinion remains divided; notes the concerns that have been raised regarding the basis on which this poll was held; considers that decisions on local development proposals are for local elected members and, where appropriate, Scottish ministers to make, in line with the statutory requirements of the land use planning system, and recognises that the decision on whether to proceed with the proposal in question is properly one for the elected members of Aberdeen City Council to make, following the local government elections in May.
10:40
I think that the motion is one that should have been moved in Aberdeen City Council chambers rather than in the Scottish Parliament.
The Labour Party’s record on referendums is not one of which it can be proud. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the 1979 referendum, when the Labour Party and Labour Party MPs proposed the 40 per cent rule, denying the Scottish people the assembly that they voted for by a majority. It is the Labour Party, along with its Tory bedfellows, that in the run up to 2014 is trying to undermine by various means the referendum on independence.
This is a soor grapes motion from the Labour Party because it lost the referendum in Aberdeen. The facts are that 165,830 voting packs were sent out to Aberdeen residents and 86,568 votes were cast, which is far more than voted Labour in Aberdeen last year. The turnout of 52 per cent far exceeded both expectations and turnout in many other elections. It seems that the Labour Party accepts a result if it wins and denies that the process was right if it loses. As Adlai Stevenson said in 1952, “The people have spoken”. I will not add what he said after that, but it perhaps reflects the attitude of the Labour Party to the result of this referendum.
A total of 28,702 votes were cast online, 9,154 by phone and 48,629 by postal ballot.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
I will give way shortly.
The counting officer was Crawford Langley, a long-standing counting officer of great reputation and independence. If he had any concerns about the legitimacy of the process, I am sure that he would have raised them.
Does the minister recall that the project sponsors held their own consultation on the matter two years ago? That produced a vote of 55 per cent against the project going forward to 45 per cent for. The sponsors said at that time that such an important decision could not possibly be taken based on such a small majority.
I will answer that question, but to be fair I will now take the other Mr McDonald.
I will change what I was going to say and ask whether the cabinet secretary agrees that, in the vote to which Lewis Macdonald refers, a very small number of people voted in an insecure consultation process? That should be compared with the secure referendum that was backed by the independent returning officer.
I agree with the intervention from Mr McDonald number 2 and disagree with the intervention from Mr Macdonald number 1.
The reality is that 45,301 people voted for the city garden project design and 41,175 voted for retaining Union Terrace gardens. Even on the basis of Labour Party mathematics, there is still a majority of 4,126 in favour of the project.
The Labour motion refers to opinion being divided. That is the whole idea of democracy. That is why we have elections: to find out what the division of opinion is and who is in the majority. In a democratic society, we should not say, “Because we lost, and because opinion was divided, we will challenge the legitimacy of the decision.”
In last year’s election, opinion was divided between Mr Macdonald and Mr Stewart but Mr Stewart had the majority opinion. Did Mr Macdonald challenge Mr Stewart’s legitimacy to be here as the first-past-the-post candidate? Perhaps he did; indeed, it has become a way of life for the Labour Party to challenge democratic decisions.
Our point is not about the people’s vote but about the voting process itself. The people’s views are entirely up to them; the issue is the system’s robustness. There are no questions about the process in last year’s elections. We regret what happened but it was the people’s choice. We accept that and have moved on.
The Labour Party has just made a major concession: people are now entitled to their views and are not entitled to be told their position by Labour. The reality is that the Labour Party has ruled Scotland for far too long. Those on the Labour benches still think that they have a divine right to rule in Aberdeen and every other part of Scotland, but the political geography has changed dramatically and for ever.
This was a legitimate referendum with a legitimate result and it is perfectly legitimate for the city council and the project’s organisers to proceed with planning and the business case for the TIF scheme. Obviously, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the planning process but, as far as TIF is concerned, I make absolutely clear what we have always said: in considering the business case for the project, we would need proof that the majority of people in Aberdeen approved of it. The Scottish Government is taking the referendum result as a resounding endorsement of the project, but the project itself is still subject to the TIF process. In other words, Aberdeen City Council and the sponsors have to submit a business case that will be duly considered under the TIF process; only then will the Scottish Government make a final decision as to whether the project can proceed with TIF. Everything now depends on the business case.
I ask the cabinet secretary to conclude.
As far as the Scottish Government is concerned, the first hurdle has been overcome. We look forward to receiving a robust business case and giving it due consideration. We should all be proper democrats and accept the majority decision.
I move amendment S4M-02246.1, to leave out from “confirmed” to end and insert:
“resulted in a majority vote in favour of the City Garden Project; notes that ministers now look forward to considering the tax incremental financing (TIF) business case for the council’s city centre development proposals, including the City Garden Project, which will be brought forward by the elected members of Aberdeen City Council when this has been finalised through work with the Scottish Futures Trust, and recognises that decisions on local development proposals are for local elected members and, where appropriate, Scottish ministers to make, in line with the statutory requirements of the land use planning system.”
I call Nanette Milne. You have a strict five minutes.
10:47
First of all, I declare that I was a councillor on Aberdeen City Council for 11 years and that my husband is currently a member of the same council.
I could hardly believe my eyes when I opened the Aberdeen edition of Tuesday’s Press and Journal and saw Lewis Macdonald declare that, if Labour won the council elections in May, it would not proceed with the city garden project that had been approved by the citizens of Aberdeen in a referendum just a few days before. What has happened to democracy? As Alex Neil pointed out, had Lewis Macdonald or Sarah Boyack achieved a majority of more than 4,000 on a 52 per cent turnout of their electorate, would they have turned their back on the result and queried the voting system? I think not.
Will the member give way?
I am taking no interventions—I am having my say on this matter.
I am sorry to say that Labour’s motion appears to have little to do with the future of Aberdeen city and everything to do with Labour’s own future—if there is one—on Aberdeen City Council. Its attempt to win council election votes from those who voted against the city garden project is despicable and indeed could well backfire, given that by no means do all those people support the Labour Party politically.
In 2002, under a front-page headline saying “Boot Them Out”, Aberdeen’s Evening Express called on Aberdeen’s voters to punish the Labour Party for making the kind of mess of the city’s finances that its political masters made in national Government. Labour was indeed booted out in 2003 and, just like the party’s members in this place, Labour members in Aberdeen have behaved like spoiled brats ever since, unable to come to terms with being in opposition.
For a start, Labour has consistently opposed measures to improve the city. In my 11 years as a councillor, I voted three times for a third crossing over the River Don; Labour hotly opposed the proposal until its opposition was finally overcome just last year. Even then, it blames others for the horrendous traffic delays at the Haudagain roundabout. It also fought the Marischal college redevelopment to the bitter end. That project, which has restored the building to its former glory and turned it into an iconic tourist attraction, was completed ahead of time and well under budget, with the added advantage of saving the taxpayer money because it is so energy efficient. If I had time, I could give many more examples of a dinosaur party trying to stifle progress in Aberdeen.
Dr Milne, I would be grateful if you would use your time to consider the motion.
I am doing that, Presiding Officer.
Labour continues to criticise, but it has had no alternative budget proposals to put forward in the past five years. Now it is trying to block a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to regenerate the entire city centre, not just Union Terrace gardens. It has rejected the wonderful philanthropic gesture of Sir Ian Wood, who is a true son of the city, and it is prepared to turn down the possibility of securing TIF funding for the project—funding that is almost certain to be repaid in good time by the long-awaited industrial developments at Dyce, let alone by the new businesses that are likely to be attracted to the city centre.
Critics say that money would be better spent on Union Street. I wish that they would realise that the city garden project will be a catalyst for that to happen. With a new, vibrant focal point in the city centre, there will be an incentive for the absentee landlords of Union Street and Bridge Street to restore the upper floors of their properties, many of which, I hope, will become well-appointed flats. That will take cars off the roads and deal with the drunken behaviour that is witnessed in the area at weekends, because people living there will simply not put up with it.
So many exciting opportunities for the city could be unlocked by the city garden project. Now that Aberdonians have approved it, it simply must go ahead. Of course, due process must be followed to secure the proposed city centre development—that is not in dispute. However, instead of carping about the referendum result, let us get on with it.
I have lived in Aberdeen for nigh on 70 years. I have seen a once magnificent and flourishing city centre—a far-sighted vision given to us by past city fathers—decline into the sad state that it is in today. I have always been fiercely proud of my city, and I sincerely hope that l live long enough to see it restored to its former glory, and secure in its future.
I will fight the SNP tooth and nail over its proposals to separate us from the rest of the United Kingdom, but on this issue, I am solidly with it, and I will certainly vote for its amendment this evening.
We turn to the open debate. We are tight for time, so speeches should be of a strict four minutes.
10:52
I congratulate Nanette Milne on her excellent speech. She spoiled it in her final sentence, but nevertheless, it was excellent.
There is a maxim that, if someone is in a hole, they should stop digging. That is clearly a message that the Labour Party does not understand. Otherwise, it would not have brought the motion to the chamber for debate. The first indication that I received on my BlackBerry was that the Labour Party was to debate economic growth. The motion is the antithesis of economic growth.
I first stood for elected office in Aberdeen in 1979. At that election, I said that Aberdeen should not be an oil capital with no legacy to show for it. Other cities throughout the world have Getty museums and art galleries, but Aberdeen did not have any significant investment from the oil companies that were based in the city and which benefited from its facilities. Do not get me wrong. Oil companies sponsor individual events, but there has been no long-term investment by those companies in the city.
Now, nearly five decades later, Aberdeen is in the almost unique position of having a promise of £50 million from a local man who has only ever had the best interests of his native city at heart. He proposes to plough in his own money to regenerate the heart of the city of Aberdeen, hauling it into the 21st century so that more companies will locate in Aberdeen. That will ensure that those who do not need to be there any more will stay, and that Aberdeen remains fit to be the energy capital of Europe for many years to come.
Given that the local Labour Party tried to make the development a party-political issue and, I have no doubt, was basing its local election campaign on the subject, it is now in panic mode. Holding a referendum was the right thing to do. Friends of Union Terrace Gardens supported a referendum, and it supported the question that was asked.
Now, the Labour Party is questioning the validity of the referendum. I have known Crawford Langley for many years and there is not another person in whom I would have more trust to conduct a referendum. The words of Sarah Boyack are absolutely disgraceful. Yes, there were police investigations, but they proved invalid. There was no double voting. The counting officer was absolutely scrupulous. If Crawford Langley had had any questions about the validity of the referendum or the costs that were ploughed into it by either side, I have no doubt that he would have raised them.
Have you read the statement that Crawford Langley gave subsequent to the referendum? What are your comments on the concerns that he has raised having gone through the experience? This is not a criticism of Crawford Langley; I was absolutely clear about that in my opening speech. Let us pick up on the lessons learnt that he has laid out for us to consider.
I remind members to speak through the chair.
I take Crawford Langley’s statement on board. Guidelines should be laid down for local referenda, but that is not what we are debating today. The people of Aberdeen have spoken. I thank Sir Ian Wood for his generosity and I welcome further contributions to the city garden project. We all need to get behind the project and make it all that it can be. I recognise that the project still has to go through the planning process.
As I said, the Labour Party finds itself in a big hole. It is flailing around and failing to get out of it. I am confident that the people of Aberdeen will leave it there at the council elections in May.
10:56
When Sir Ian Wood launched his proposals for Union Terrace gardens in November 2008, he said that he would proceed only if the project had strong support from the people of Aberdeen. In the past three years, the project has rather divided opinion in the city, and the consensus that Ian Wood hoped for at the outset has not been achieved.
Throughout the process, Sir Ian has been as courteous as he is generous, but that does not absolve SNP or Tory councillors from their responsibility to make decisions on the city’s future if they are elected to office. Nor does holding a referendum allow councillors to shrug off responsibility, especially when the poll is not based on agreement among all the parties that are represented on the city council.
Democracy is about the vote itself, but it also requires consent across parties, effective limits on campaign spending, and properly tested safeguards against fraud. None of those things was in place for last week’s ballot. Many thousands of glossy leaflets went through people’s doors from organisations that had not registered to take part in the campaign. It is also a matter of record that the majority of those who voted by post said no to the city garden scheme.
Ministers are planning their own referendum and it is surely in all our interests that the conduct of that vote should be fair, its legal basis should be clear, and its result should be beyond challenge. The Electoral Commission has raised concerns about, for example, how 16 and 17-year-olds might be given the vote. Crawford Langley said at the count in Aberdeen last week that most 17-year-olds and some 16-year-olds could vote, but clearly some 17-year-olds and most 16-year-olds could not. That is what can happen if there is no agreement on process, and that is also a lesson for the Scottish Government.
The referendum was the third time that public opinion had been canvassed, but the first time that the project achieved any kind of majority. Far from showing strong support, the result confirmed what we knew from the consultation and from every opinion poll that the local press had carried out: public opinion in the city is divided, so the buck stops with those who are elected to the council to take decisions.
Does Mr Macdonald not recognise that there is a difference between an opinion poll that has no rules and regulations in place and which canvasses the opinions of only a small percentage of the city’s population and, in some cases, those from outwith the city, and a referendum in which more than 52 per cent of the city’s citizens voted?
I am quite happy if councillors choose to base their decision in part on the referendum, but they cannot base it on that alone. If SNP councillors lead Aberdeen City Council after 3 May, presumably we can expect them to seek consent in the way that we have heard, but they would be failing in their duty if they judged that the scheme would not work and gave it the go-ahead anyway. That is why I believe that a Labour-led council would not seek consent to borrow for the scheme as it stands. The weakness of the business case is fundamental, as is the lack of any proposal for meeting future revenue costs.
The risk that the council’s consultants and Audit Scotland identified—that there will be millions of pounds of unpaid debt at the end of the process—is still there. The city council does not have sufficient financial strength to take that risk. Of course, another scheme might be a different story. If ministers were prepared to let the council keep business rates income to fund essential infrastructure projects in the city, a Labour-led council would have no difficulty in identifying projects to support economic development. The difference is that those projects would have the support of the vast majority of people in Aberdeen and would allow the city to move forward together.
11:00
How appropriate that McDonald number 2 follows Macdonald number 1, although I am not sure that I appreciate being referred to as a number 2, but there we go.
I found the referendum in Aberdeen to be helpful for two reasons. First, it helped to give an indication of public support for the project, which the Government stipulated as necessary in its recommendations on how Aberdeen could secure tax increment financing funding. Secondly, the process has given the Labour Party welcome practice at being on the losing side in a referendum, which I am sure will come in handy for it in 2014.
Will the member give way?
No—don’t be silly.
I will address some of the concerns—I will be generous and call them that—that Lewis Macdonald and Sarah Boyack have raised by reading some quotations. The first is from Crawford Langley, the independent counting officer, in whom I have a great deal of trust and faith, as I have worked alongside him at a number of elections and seen his work. He said:
“The decision to run a postal ballot was largely taken before I was appointed as Counting Officer, but, as a professional electoral administrator with close on 40 years experience, I would not have accepted the appointment had I been asked to conduct it on any other basis. Make no mistake: any other form of ballot would have been substantially open to fraud.”
The Labour Party’s insinuation that the process was somehow not secure flies in the face of Crawford Langley’s comments.
Sarah Boyack suggested that we all need to read Mr Langley’s statement—I have read it and I agree that consideration needs to be given to what happens with local referenda in the future. However, the Labour Party motion makes not one reference to that concept. We could have had an interesting debate on the concept of local referenda and how to perhaps put in place a framework for them. Instead, we have a motion that Lewis Macdonald has helpfully brought to the Parliament to try to assist his colleagues in Aberdeen City Council in their attempts to win the council election in May. It is unfortunate that parliamentary time is being used for that purpose when the issue rightly belongs in the chamber of Aberdeen City Council and on the doorsteps of the city of Aberdeen.
I have a couple more quotations that might lead to sober reflection among the Labour Party. One states:
“The people of our historic city have voted in a democratic referendum. It is now time for Sir Ian Wood, ACSEF and the city council to return the trust shown in them. I implore all those involved with the City Garden to deliver on their promise of an on budget, sympathetic transformational project. I wish all those involved well.”
That was Jimmy Milne, chairman of the Balmoral Group, in the Aberdeen Press and Journal on 7 March 2012. That is significant because Jimmy Milne opposed the city garden project, but he recognises the result of the referendum and the will of the people of Aberdeen to move forward with the project. It is a great pity that Lewis Macdonald cannot recognise the will of the people.
A final quotation is from Scott Begbie, a columnist in the Evening Express. Again, he was an opponent of the project in advance of the referendum, but he said:
“The campaign was hard fought by both sides, the people voted as they saw fit and the die is cast. What happens now is the real test of Aberdeen as a city. A grown-up, mature society would agree to disagree and accept the majority opinion.”
It is clear that the Labour Party in the city of Aberdeen is not grown up or mature—it says no to the city garden project despite the public support; it said no to the Marischal college project, despite the fact that the scheme was delivered £22 million under budget by an SNP administration; it said no to the third Don crossing, which would solve congestion in the city; and it said no to the community stadium, which would help with the regeneration of our city. In May, the citizens of Aberdeen will be perfectly entitled to say no to the dinosaurs of the Labour Party.
11:04
The Union Terrace gardens debate started badly and has, at times, been bitter. It is a pity that what should have been a positive and lively debate on alternative futures for Aberdeen city centre has become so polarised. One of the reasons why that has happened is that the Labour Party chose—for narrow, party-political aims—to fuel the negativity, and it continues to do so.
There is no doubt that the city centre has lost its vibrancy. Its decline is due, at least in part, to the absence of a master plan for the area. That, of course, has now been corrected, thanks to a change in the city council governance. If a region is to remain competitive, its city centre must compare well with other major European cities. Aberdeen would certainly benefit from a more vibrant city centre, which research has demonstrated is a key component of competitive regions.
Some poor planning decisions over the years have changed the way in which the city centre is used: the shopping areas are now disconnected; the main thoroughfare of Union Street is in decline; and, unlike most cities, Aberdeen has very little pedestrianisation. Although the gardens provide green space in the city centre, they are woefully underused and inaccessible to many.
For all those reasons, I supported the initial consultation and encouraged everyone to take part. A public debate on what might be done to improve the heart of our city was long overdue. Like many, I was disappointed that Peacock’s well-developed proposals were scuppered by the sudden intervention of the offer of funding by Sir Ian Wood. I argued strongly that, however generous, that must not become the main consideration. It was wholly wrong that it was portrayed as a take-it-or-leave-it deal.
I accept that Aberdeen City Council took the decision to progress to the design stage. In fact, the design competition advanced the debate and opened people’s eyes to the possibilities. The exhibition of the shortlisted designs was attended by many people and there was a real buzz around the city.
The decision to hold a referendum reassured people that everyone’s views would be properly taken into account.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have much time.
This has been the most thoroughly debated urban regeneration project that I am aware of. Sarah Boyack said that there were concerns about how the proposals were communicated, but the council, Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future, local groups and the chamber of commerce set out clearly the issues to be considered. The Press and Journal is also to be commended for its coverage of both sides of the argument—the newspaper gave over many pages to explore the ideas over a number of weeks.
Last week, as we have heard, 86,000 people voted in the referendum. The number of those in favour was 45,301 and 41,175 were against. The turnout was 52 per cent, which was better than that for our elections last year. The Labour Party says that that is not decisive enough and suggests that the referendum was not conducted properly, but it has not provided any evidence for that. It is a bit rich of the Labour Party to talk about the result not being clear. Lewis Macdonald’s majority in the 2007 election for Aberdeen Central was 382 on a 51 per cent turnout, but I do not recall him worrying about that not being decisive enough.
Now that the vote has been taken, the onus is on the elected members of Aberdeen City Council to respect the outcome. I remain concerned that a project of this scale will struggle to find sufficient funding and that it could end up being trimmed back and thereby not providing the city with the world-class design for which the citizens voted. That would be a betrayal of the hope that the people have shown. There is a duty on the council to work to determine whether the scheme’s funding package truly stacks up. It must be forensic in its analysis and include the kinds of costs that were mentioned by Sarah Boyack. I imagine that that will take many months and involve both the current council and the new council, which will be elected in May.
The wonderful refurbishment of Marischal college has shown what can be done when our councillors are determined. I hope that that is just the start of our city’s renaissance. The Labour Party can either play its part in that or continue to be negative. If it chooses the latter, it will become utterly irrelevant in the city.
11:08
As a former citizen of Aberdeen—I lived there when all this started—I am delighted that we have reached the point at which the city council now has a mandate to get on with an undoubtedly world-class project. However, I am disappointed with the nature of this parliamentary debate, principally because the motion bears little resemblance to what Labour Party members are now trying to say about it, having realised that what they proposed in the first place was probably not too bright.
Let me return to the subject at hand. When this process started, I lived in Aberdeen—in AB24 5DE—and I remember when Sir Ian Wood first briefed MSPs on the subject. I had just returned from a visit to family in New Zealand, during which I went to the botanical gardens in Wellington and saw the open-air theatre. I recognise that the weather in Wellington is slightly different from ours, but we get some good weather and possibly less wind. I thought how wonderful it would be if that kind of environment could be created in Aberdeen, where I lived and which I know and love. Along came Sir Ian Wood, saying, “Why don’t we?” and, “Furthermore, I’ll pay for it.” Well done, Sir Ian. Thank you.
I admit that the initial consultation did not get off to a very good start, as Alison McInnes mentioned. Frankly, there was an unhelpful drawing and the original consultation probably was not as wide as it should have been. The net result was that not a very large number of people expressed an opinion. I am glad that a very, very large number of people have now expressed an opinion and that they clearly knew what they were voting on—there can be no doubt about that. The vote might have been won by a relatively small margin, but Alison McInnes made the point well about the way in which elections have operated; some members here know about that.
Will the member take an intervention?
Forgive me, but I want to make another point.
In the debate, I have been surprised not by the Labour Party’s negativity, which I have got used to, but by the fact that it now wants to change the subject to referenda, although it will ensure that the press release is about Aberdeen.
In my last minute, I will consider what the project will look like for someone who lives between Aberdeen and Dundee, as I do. Dundee, where I lived for a long time, has seen a vision of something being done to regenerate the city. If members are not aware of the waterfront project, they should be. That project, which will reach its pinnacle when we get the Victoria and Albert museum there, will transform Dundee completely as a place to do business, as a visitor centre and, therefore, as a place to live. Dundee has shown what can be done, and I do not think that it is entirely coincidental that there was a change in the make-up of the council.
Aberdeen has an opportunity to catch up, but it sounds as though one of the political parties that might have something to do with the council after 5 May does not want that to happen. The message from today’s debate seems simply to be about whom Aberdonians should not vote for. Frankly, if they want to see some vision for and development of their city, they will have to turn to the other parties.
11:12
I thank Nigel Don for his considered comments on the Dundee waterfront; however, I respectfully remind him that the plans for that project were laid before the SNP took control of the council in Dundee. It was a Labour council that pushed those plans forward.
For those who live in Dyce, Kincorth and everywhere in between, the debate surrounding Union Terrace gardens has been the single most talked-about issue in Aberdeen. Although the genuine concern this week has been about what is clearly a flawed referendum, I will talk about the true cost of the project. The figures just do not add up.
Although the SNP-led council claims that the bulk of the £92 million that is being spent on the project will be returned in the future through business rates, the council’s TIF business team recognises that, if there is just a small increase in the cost of borrowing or a small shortfall in the projected income from business rates, Aberdeen City Council will be left with millions of pounds of additional debt but no contingency fund from which to repay it. It also seems that the council’s finance staff do not have high hopes that the city’s revenues will increase. In September, a spokesperson from Aberdeen City Council predicted
“a forecast £127 million reduction in income along with extra cost pressures between now and 2015/16”.
It is not just the council’s own staff who are telling the SNP that the project is financially unviable; it is Audit Scotland, too. In the report that was released this week, Audit Scotland stated that the project represents a
“long-term risk for the council”,
which is unable to fund any shortfall in the new business rates.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Aberdeen City Council is currently £560 million in debt and predicts a further £127 million reduction in income over the next four years. It is incredible that the SNP’s answer to that is to take on more debt now, in the hope that that will be paid off in the future but with no guarantee that that will happen and no way of coping if it does not. That is an extraordinary risk to the people of Aberdeen, who are already suffering as a result of school closures, job losses and pay freezes.
The SNP administration in Aberdeen, endorsed by Alex Salmond, has reduced the education budget by a staggering £28 million. Schools have closed: Victoria Road primary, St Machar primary and Causewayend school have all shut their doors under the SNP. Pupil support assistants across the city have lost their jobs and essential social care providers such as Choices have gone.
Labour will continue to speak out against the administration’s reckless decisions and to stand up in the best interests of everybody in Aberdeen—not just those who have the deepest pockets.
11:15
I declare an interest as a member of Aberdeen City Council. I will begin with Jenny Marra’s speech. When one prepares a speech for the chamber, one should use up-to-date figures. She used figures from the five-year business plan that are rather out of date, thanks to the fact that the SNP Government provided the council with more finance.
Once again, we have the negativity but not the positivity. Ms Marra talked about the closure of some schools, but she did not talk about the 10 new schools that have been built in Aberdeen in recent times and were delivered by the SNP-led administration. That is interesting, but not entirely surprising.
There is absolutely no doubt that the debate about Union Terrace gardens has polarised the city. One reason why I called for the referendum and moved a motion at the council, which was passed, is that there was only one way to deal with the matter and that was to let Aberdonians decide what the situation should be. Last week, 52 per cent of Aberdonians voted in favour of the city garden project. I voted yes, as did many others.
I will give members a few numbers: 51.1 per cent versus 48.9 per cent. The figure of 51.1 per cent is the share of votes that Anas Sarwar received to become the Labour Party’s deputy leader; 48.9 per cent of folk voted agin. Does Labour dispute that he should be the deputy leader? Lewis Macdonald probably does, but he received only 15.62 per cent.
The usual local government election campaign has started and Labour has nothing whatever to say that is positive. It has of late punted out a leaflet called “Aberdeen Leader”—I think not—the headline of which is, “Your City, Your Say”. Labour then gives citizens an instruction:
“Vote to Retain Union Terrace Gardens”.
I am a little bit of a cynic, but I think that Labour has printed a huge number of those leaflets, canna see them go to waste and winna have them pulped, which is why we are having the debate.
It is no surprise to me or my colleagues that the Labour Party is holding up the development of our city. Ms Boyack said that we were discussing “a local planning issue”. It is not a local planning issue yet, although I am sure that it will be. The Labour Party has voted en bloc to turn down every major planning proposal of late. That applies to the third Don crossing, as has been said, and to the community stadium, Marischal college and so on.
The Labour Party has been in trouble before over possible whipping on planning issues—we saw the demise of one of its councillors not so long ago over the Kingswells stadium bid. Some time real soon, somebody will probably look at Labour’s voting records and at the fact that politics is coming into play in planning issues.
Ms Boyack said in the Evening Express this week that Labour would paint the Town house red. That is a matter for the people of Aberdeen, but I do not see that coming, because the Labour Party has gone down and down in recent times. If she wants to paint the Town house red, she will have to visit B&Q to get a few tins of paint and some brushes, and I am sure that she will have an argument with Historic Scotland about that.
That concludes the open part of the debate. We now move to closing speeches.
11:20
I genuinely thank the Labour Party for having brought this matter to the chamber, as it gives us an opportunity to unite the Parliament in a way that it has not been united in a long time. It is always nice when we have something to chase. I thank Labour, also, for giving my colleague Nanette Milne the opportunity to speak on this subject. She is well known as a mild-mannered member of the Parliament, who uses reason to make her arguments and peppers her speeches with statistics. Today, however, we saw her getting her teeth into something that she really enjoyed, and that will be a memory that I will hold for some time.
Today, we are talking about the Union Terrace gardens and the city garden project—at least, I am. There is much that is novel about the city garden project. That is perhaps the one justification for us to be talking about it today, because, when novel processes are adopted and we try something new, it is up to us politicians to debate them, consider the opportunities and take the matter forward in as informed a way as possible. However, the Labour Party has chosen to focus on the referendum. Like many others in this debate, I am amazed at the idea that one of the parties in this chamber, which turned out to be on the wrong side in that debate, should now question the validity of that referendum.
Does Alex Johnstone agree that the Labour Party should have done the same as the other parties in the council and given its members a free vote on the issue?
I believe that it would have been wise of it to have done so.
I will make a few comments about the referendum that are, perhaps, slightly different from others that have been made. What do I take from the division in the results and the fact that those who voted by post appeared to vote one way and those who used alternatives means of voting—by phone or online—appeared to vote another way? I could suggest that those who voted by phone or online were more likely to be the younger participants in the ballot, and the result might therefore indicate that those who see their future in Aberdeen in the long term, who want greater employment and who want success and wealth to be created in the city are those who chose to vote for the project. That is as valid a claim as any that has been made by the Labour Party.
There have been previous consultations on the issue, in the form of opinion polls and an online ballot. The online ballot sparked a worldwide debate, with people with particular points of view intervening from the far corners of the earth. The online ballot opposed the project, but it was not limited to the people of Aberdeen. The referendum was, though—so much so that I, who live in Stonehaven, and many other people in Aberdeenshire, were disappointed that we did not get the chance to show our vociferous support. Within Aberdeen it was held and within Aberdeen it produced a majority. The minister quite rightly talked about that majority in terms that referred to the 1979 ballot on Scottish devolution, in which the majority that supported the proposition did not reach the 40 per cent mark that had been stipulated in the legislation. The irony is that it is the same Labour Party that supported that requirement that is now griping about the narrowness of the majority.
The vote was legitimate. It was, perhaps, experimental in some ways, but it produced a result that was, in my view, wide enough to be decisive.
There are other things that are novel in the project that have been criticised today, such as tax increment financing, which will, we hope, provide the project with £92 million. The business case is critical to the issue, and it is essential that we understand that TIF is a new funding method for Scotland and that the projects that pioneer its use will have to withstand scrutiny—their business cases will have to be sound. If we are to make the system work, we will have to progress the initiative. I believe that the amendment that the Government has lodged indicates that it will scrutinise that process, as is its responsibility.
I support the amendment in Alex Neil’s name.
11:25
Like Nanette Milne, I am a mild-mannered member of the Parliament. My speech will focus on three particular issues but, first, I declare that I have no particular interest in the local election campaign in Aberdeen. I am not standing in Aberdeen or, indeed, anywhere in the local elections.
It behoves political parties to be very careful about challenging a democratic process, particularly when a party is on the losing side and particularly when the turnout for the referendum was higher than the 50.2 per cent turnout for the Aberdeen City Council elections in 2007. If we look at the by-elections that have been held in Aberdeen, the turnout in every case was under 30 per cent. In terms of turnout, the result of the referendum is as legitimate as that for the by-elections and elections to which I referred. Indeed, the result is arguably more legitimate because of the higher turnout, which produced a majority.
Does the minister accept that, given the efforts that were made at the outset to build a consensus in favour of change and given the concerns that we have heard from his own benches about how the debate became polarised, holding a referendum in that format accentuated the polarisation and that, far from building a consensus, it means that, whatever the result, it is one that half the population of Aberdeen did not want?
I would have thought that building consensus or unanimity on the issue would have been extremely difficult, to say the least. We have elections and referenda so that where there is a division of opinion or a choice of points of view, we can settle the matter according to the majority vote. I say to the Labour Party that the water is under the bridge and it is time to get on with trying to build a new future for Aberdeen, and Aberdeen city centre in particular.
As Mark McDonald said, there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether we should have a referendum act to set out the rules and regulations to govern the administration of locally organised referenda in Scotland. Had the motion been on those lines, I am sure that the chamber might have been able to reach unanimity on that point. However, today’s motion is not one of high principle in relation to future rules and regulations for local referenda but one of low principle—in fact, of no principle other than, “We lost the referendum and we are complaining that we lost the referendum.” That is not a legitimate point of view.
I was not intending to intervene, because I have no knowledge of Aberdeen, but I am interested in tax increment financing. Having listened to the debate, I am concerned that TIF may be being brought into disrepute. Will the cabinet secretary agree to look objectively at the TIF proposal and judge it only in accordance with the strict criteria for approving such proposals?
I will have more to say about TIF, but I can categorically assure the member that the Aberdeen proposal, like every other TIF proposal, will be considered within the regulations and the process that we have set down and that there will have to be a successful business case before it receives approval from the Scottish Government. Sir Ian Wood and Aberdeen City Council and its officers are all fully aware of the fact that planning and approval of the business case are the next steps in ensuring that the project goes ahead. We will approve it only if the business case is sustainable, and I now expect a robust business case to be put forward.
I agree that that is the way that the process should be carried out and I would not expect anything other.
Will the cabinet secretary join me in calling on private money holders to put their hands a little bit further into their pockets so that the amount that we need in TIF can be reduced even more? I am sure that other benefactors may wish to contribute to the amazing project.
Cabinet secretary, you are in your last minute and I can give you only a few seconds back.
The leverage from the private sector is one of the considerations in deciding on the robustness of any TIF business case.
My final point is another warning to the Labour Party. It is a dangerous precedent for even a shadow spokesman to say that, if his party is in the majority in a city council, it will not give a proposal planning permission when it comes before the council. That is a complete contravention of the wording and spirit of our planning laws, and I hope that Lewis Macdonald will retract his promise not to give the project planning permission if his party is in a position to reject it.
11:31
I will pick up on that last point. The Labour Party has not made a commitment either way on planning permission. We are nowhere near the planning stage of the project, but a decision has been taken on the TIF and a proposal was put to people without full knowledge of the planning case.
As someone who has been interested in and passionate about planning for decades, I must say that there is a due process to be gone through once we get to deciding on an application and I am concerned that people’s hands have been tied by the process to date. We have seen that happen before and it is of great regret.
Will Sarah Boyack give way?
No. I took a large number of interventions earlier. I was fairer than I should have been.
We make several points in our motion: we note the referendum that was held; we note that opinion remains divided; and we note that there are concerns about the poll. Most of our time this morning has been spent debating those concerns and our request for the minister to examine the poll.
I am glad that SNP back benchers and the minister have stated that it would be good if common rules and guidelines could be used for future referenda. That is one of the things that we are absolutely determined must come out of the experience in Aberdeen. There need to be clear rules so that no counting officer is put in the position of having to report a series of major concerns about the process of a referendum after the poll. The counting officer in Aberdeen worked hard and did his best. His integrity is not being criticised, but the process, the lack of clarity and the lack of clear, accepted ground rules are. Those must concern us all.
That covers the first two points of our motion and cuts to the heart of the matter.
Why can we not talk about the 48 per cent of voters who did not give their consent to the project? I accept the discussion that we have had today. Independent people counted the vote, but that does not mean that we have no concerns about the process, which must be examined.
Division remains in the city. If members think that the referendum was controversial, they should wait until we get to the planning process. Members should think of the challenges of putting together such a project. We cannot silence people simply because they have not given their consent.
There is a requirement on both sides of the debate to move forward with a proper and honest discussion about what will happen next. I agree that the 48 per cent who did not support the project were not all Labour supporters. We know that. The debate is not simply about us speaking for Labour voters.
Will Sarah Boyack give way?
No, I will not.
We are making legitimate points in our national Parliament about the concerns that remain. There is nothing wrong with doing that and I do not see why we should be gagged and prevented from doing it. We are making the point that there were concerns about the process. Those concerns need to be brought to the chamber so that they can be learned from for the future.
When we add together the complexities of the finance that underpins TIF and the future complexities of the planning process, we see that the overall process is intensely complicated. I put it to members that we have seen major complexities in previous planning applications and Government ministers should be careful about what they say. At the end of the day, it is inevitable that an issue that involves a council decision and a council’s financial interest will revert to the Scottish ministers, who will have to take an unbiased decision. However, ministers are pushing the process, through TIF. My colleague Lewis Macdonald has written several letters to Alex Neil and asked several questions in the Parliament, and it is absolutely clear that the Scottish Government has been determined that there should be an Aberdeen TIF project and that it should be the Union Terrace gardens TIF project. That is regrettable.
We do not oppose economic development in Aberdeen, although our support for economic development in the past has not been mentioned in the debate—I am not surprised at that, because members of other parties do not want to give the Labour Party a fair hearing on the issue. We have consistently supported economic improvements to Aberdeen city.
Will the member give way?
I will not, because Kevin Stewart cannot speak for the Labour Party on the matter; he has an opposing interest.
We are committed to the future of Aberdeen. That is why the issue is so important and why we are so passionate about it. Huge amounts of money are at stake. Prudential borrowing of £92 million will tie up a huge amount of the council’s money for the next few years, when the council could be spending the money on other things. Jenny Marra made a powerful speech about the need for investment in education in the city.
Will the member give way on that point?
I absolutely will not. I could not have taken more interventions during my opening speech, when I gave way to the extent that I lost nearly three minutes of speaking time. I want to make comments that I was not able to make then.
The motion raises issues to do with the conduct of the ballot and the ground rules for the referendum. Referenda need to be agreed in advance by all parties, so that they can be fair and be seen to be fair, and so that people can agree with the outcome and move on.
The motion raises issues to do with the planning process for the project. I agreed with some of what Alison McInnes said in that regard. If, in future, someone says to the people, “You know, we won’t be able to go with the proposals as we put them to you—really sorry about that. There will be financial and planning implications, but we got your say-so, so we are just going to move on,” what will happen? What will happen if there are significant changes to the scheme?
What will happen if there are cost overruns? The main railway line is part of the site. I cannot think of a railway project that has gone through without major financial challenges arising in relation to the initial proposals. For examples of that, we need only look down the road to the Waverley station and Haymarket station projects, which are nowhere near the initial expectations. The details of projects matter, and the details of the Union Terrace gardens proposals have not been worked through.
How will the Scottish Government make an objective decision? It rightly wants every part of Scotland to be able to benefit from TIF proposals. Why is the Government tying itself to such a complex and controversial major project, when if it sat down with and talked to the other parties it would find that there is a different attitude to some elements of the TIF proposal?
There is a real issue to do with objective decision making when the Government is so tied to a particular project, which is regrettable. I will not apologise for Labour standing up to speak for not just our voters in Aberdeen but all voters who had a strong view on the proposal and who remain unhappy and deeply concerned about Aberdeen City Council’s financial future.
There is debate about the nature of the referendum in Aberdeen, and there is debate about the forthcoming referendum on the constitution. The recent experience in Aberdeen demonstrates the importance of fairness in all referenda. Surely we can all agree on that. Our motion simply records the concerns about the basis on which the poll was held. Those concerns need to be listened to; they must not be dismissed by the minister.
The Union Terrace gardens project will not be any less controversial as a result of last week’s vote. The irony is that all the difficult stuff is still to come; the process will not be straightforward. It is absolutely right that we make that point. It is for local councillors to scrutinise the details on the financial and planning aspects of the proposal—accountability will be vital—and it is for the people in Aberdeen to take the matter forward.
It is important that the Scottish Government produces a clear framework to guide local authorities, to ensure fairness in future decisions. When it comes to voting in elections and in the national referendum, we need to ensure that we have all the details and that issues of fairness have been pinned down in advance. Clear lessons must be learned from the Aberdeen experience, because the referendum was not a straightforward process and the project will not be a straightforward process.
We reserve our right, at national and at local level, to ask the awkward questions that our voters put us here to ask. That is the job of a responsible Opposition, and we will continue to do that job.