Aberdeen City Centre
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-03921, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on Aberdeen city centre. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the result of the 2012 referendum in Aberdeen, which found in favour of the proposed City Garden Project; understands that a very generous £55 million of private sector money was offered for this scheme, and believes that, in order to thrive, Aberdeen city centre needs transformational change.
17:06
It may have escaped some folks’ notice, but I am an Aberdonian born and bred. I am proud of the granite city and of the vision that led to the construction of Union Bridge and Union Street and which led to Aberdeen having a vibrant heart that was fit for that era. James Matthews, a great architect who was an apprentice of the legendary Archibald Simpson, was one of the men who were at the forefront of designing great buildings and places, such as Aberdeen grammar school, the Tivoli theatre and the music hall. Matthews, who became lord provost of the city, also designed Union Terrace. I understand that his great ambition was to cover over the railway line that runs near that great city thoroughfare.
Let us move on from Matthews’ great 19th century vision to today’s Aberdeen: an Aberdeen that could see the covering over of the railway and road that run through the Denburn; an Aberdeen that could see the amount of green space in its city centre expanded greatly and made more accessible than it currently is; and an Aberdeen with an eye to the future. Like many big schemes, the city garden project is not without controversy. It would be fair to say that the proposed city centre development polarised Aberdonians’ views. That polarisation was exacerbated by the many myths that were peddled about the scheme and who was likely to profit from it. Let us be honest, because as far as I am concerned the only folk who were going to benefit were Aberdonians.
However, because of that polarisation I, as a councillor at the time, put it to the council that a referendum should be held on the issue to get the true views of Aberdonians so that the people who make the decisions could take the decisions knowing full well what the views of the majority of Aberdonians were. That referendum took place and 45,301 people voted for the city garden project and 41,175 voted for the retention of Union Terrace gardens, which meant a majority of 4,126 for the former.
We have seen in recent times that referendum result being ignored by the Labour-led administration in Aberdeen. I believe that that is completely and utterly anti-democratic and goes against the wishes of the Aberdonians who took the time to vote in the referendum. Since then, we have seen a situation wherein the Labour Party does not know where it is going in dealing with Aberdeen. Some of its members say that the referendum result should not stand, because it was not a real referendum. I argue that the Labour Party legitimised the referendum by coming out as a campaigning organisation in the run-up to the vote.
Does Kevin Stewart agree that there are lessons about conducting a referendum to be learned from the experience in Aberdeen so that we can ensure that, rather than pulling together a referendum that is skewed and can be misrepresented, we have one the results of which everybody can abide by?
That is a strange intervention indeed, because there were supporters and opposers of the city garden project who were in favour of the referendum and happy about the way that it was conducted until the result was announced.
Ms Grant slurs Crawford Langley, the independent officer who dealt with the referendum. I have great respect for that man, who has conducted numerous elections in his career.
Will Kevin Stewart give way?
I will move on, because I will come to Mr Macdonald later on in my speech.
What are Labour’s plans now? It has rejected tax increment finance, which would probably have had great benefit for Aberdeen and, after the loan had been paid off, would likely have left the city with £36 million to invest in further infrastructure.
What is the transformational project that Labour wants to undertake? It has changed day by day. Labour recently came out in favour of the pedestrianisation of Union Street but, the day after, it was not quite sure about that—I am sure that we will hear more about that later.
To do some of the things that the Labour group has said, other things need to be put in place. Those include improvements to the road network, such as the proposals for the Berryden corridor, the third Don crossing and the Haudagain roundabout, all of which Labour rejected.
What are Labour’s great plans for the city? Today, the council leader said that he had written to the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities saying that he wanted her to back and pay for a rail link to the airport. There are no strategic plans for that, but he expects the cabinet secretary to put her hand in her pocket and do it. That is nonsense. I imagine that, tomorrow, he will come out in favour of the eastern peripheral route.
Who is in charge of Aberdeen City Council? Is it Barney Crockett, the president of the presidium; Willie Young, the general secretary; or Tsarina Marie Boulton—or is there a Rasputin in the background? In reality, the council group is unhappy at the interference from certain quarters. Gordon Graham wrote to Willie Young in an e-mail on 7 March:
“I write to express my concern that Lewis McDonald MSP is stating on radio today that if Labour are elected at the local council elections then this project will not go ahead.
This is not the decision made at a group meeting last night and I am extremely concerned that it appears as if someone has sanctioned Lewis to speak on our behalf.
I also reserve the right to refute what Lewis is saying and say that we have reservations over the funding however no decision has been made by the Labour Group.”
It seems as though there is Rasputin-like interference from outside.
I want to know what the future is for Aberdeen city centre. I hope that it is a bright future with real vision. Let democracy reign, let the council listen to the people and let us go ahead with the city garden project.
17:13
I acknowledge that Mr Stewart has brought to the chamber an important issue.
Like others, I recognise the generosity of Sir Ian Wood’s offer of a contribution to the city garden project. He deserves credit for focusing minds on Aberdeen’s future. However, the project divided the city. That is evident from the narrow result in the referendum after a skewed process—the Office of Communications found today that rules on advertising had been breached. It is also evident from the consultation that the majority opposed the scheme.
When we hear talk of democracy, let us remember—even if it is painful for the Scottish National Party—that Labour won the most councillors in Aberdeen at the election in May and that is why Labour leads a coalition administration. Let us also remember that the mandate on which Labour councillors were elected was not to proceed with the city garden project. That some members might suggest that the Labour group should break its own electoral mandate shows what a tenuous grip on the concept of democracy they have.
To describe those who do not support the city garden project as therefore being against all development and to say that a message has been sent from Aberdeen against development is hyperbole that lets the city down.
The accusation of being anti-development is probably the right one: anti-third Don crossing; anti-Haudagain; anti-stadium; anti-city garden project. What is Labour for in Aberdeen?
I find it astonishing that Kevin Stewart criticises the Labour Party on the Haudagain roundabout, when it is the Scottish Government that has decided to delay for years the progress that we should be making now on the roundabout. That shows the paucity of Mr Stewart’s argument. He seems to be trying to blame the Labour group on Aberdeen City Council for everything, including the poor summer.
Although I respect the views of those who genuinely believed that the city garden project was the right way forward, those who did not support the project also want what is best for the city and want development that works. The fact is that the city garden project involved almost £100 million of borrowing for the council on the basis of a business case that did not stack up and was based on huge assumptions. Much of the additional revenue that was forecast depended on infrastructure investment not in the city centre, but in the north of the city. Its design meant that the project was a massively risky and complex exercise and that the potential for overspend was enormous—as we in this building should be well aware. We need development, but it must be development that will work.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
I did not support no development in Union Terrace gardens. My preferred option was to proceed with the Peacock contemporary arts centre—an exciting and affordable project that would have breathed new life into the gardens.
Members who support the motion may crave political capital, but I know many people who support the resolve of the Labour group and other councillors on the issue. The key issue now is to realise that the debate on the city garden project has been concluded and that it is time to move on. That is the view of all the groups in the administration.
The administration of the city council is committed to development in the city that will genuinely bring economic benefit. That is why the city council is now developing a revised business case. It would be great folly for ministers to reject the business case before they receive it, particularly as they supported the city garden project before they saw the business case for that.
Rather than seek to punish Aberdeen for not supporting their preferred project, it would be much better for ministers to accept the decision of the council and work with it to bring forward and support a revised business case and invest in Aberdeen in the same way as they seek to invest in other cities.
I believe that what the great majority of people in Aberdeen now want is not a sterile debate on a decision that has been taken, but for ministers to work with the council to bring forward development in Aberdeen that is affordable and that will genuinely bring to the local economy the benefits that we want.
17:17
It is a privilege to be here and to speak in the debate.
I notice that five former councillors who represented Aberdeen and one who represented Aberdeenshire are in the chamber. I was on the City of Aberdeen District Council and then Aberdeen City Council with Nanette Milne. My colleagues Kevin Stewart and Mark McDonald served on the city council until recently and my colleague Maureen Watt served on Grampian Regional Council.
Those of us who can cast our minds back a little way will remember that it was the Labour-led Grampian Regional Council—led by the late Robert Middleton—that introduced the dual carriageway down the Denburn. The district council insisted that the dual carriageway had sufficient strengthening to bear any development above it, over it and over the railway line, because the vision for the city gardens project is a long-standing one, which was not delivered although it certainly had public endorsement in the referendum. Mr Stewart was perhaps a little modest about describing his involvement, but it is to his great credit and to the great credit of Aberdeen City Council that it decided to consult the people properly.
The project is undoubtedly controversial, but the people of Aberdeen endorsed it. It ill behoves Rhoda Grant to question the validity or circumstances of any such referendum, as Labour’s record on referenda is not strong. I remember the 1979 referendum, which was absolutely pauchled by Labour MPs and was then ignored, although a majority was in favour of establishing this place.
Does Mr Adam recognise the findings in the report that Ofcom has issued today about the lack of balance in the Aberdeen referendum process? There were 338 radio broadcasts for one side of the argument but only 26 for the other, and tens of thousands of glossy leaflets were distributed through doors by unregistered groups whose campaign spending had no limits.
That continues the sour grapes that we have heard again and again from the Labour Party when the people have rejected its ideas.
An unusual coalition administration runs Aberdeen City Council; I do not know how long it will last. I certainly hope that it can develop a vision for the city, but there is little evidence that it has done so. The administration’s alternative plans, which have been cobbled together, include restoring the Victorian toilets in Union Terrace gardens. Of itself, that is no a bad idea. However, Labour members were also enthusiasts for the Peacock proposals, which fell by the wayside. Given that those proposals would undoubtedly have encroached on and—in some people’s eyes—destroyed the gardens, a little more consistency in Labour’s approach might be welcomed.
In recent times, the accusation has been thrown about that Aberdeen has not had a fair share. When I came to the Parliament, we had 10 per cent of the population and 10 per cent of hospital activity but only 9 per cent of funding. It is to the Scottish Government’s great credit that that argument has been won. Similarly, Grampian Police’s funding has been sorted.
We delivered changes in funding for the city council that will allow developments to take place. It is just a pity that we do not have people in charge of the city who respect the citizens or have a positive vision for the city’s future.
17:23
I am happy to support Kevin Stewart’s motion, and I congratulate him on bringing this crucial issue for Aberdeen to the chamber again.
As you know, Presiding Officer, I am passionate about my city’s future, but my confidence in it has been significantly undermined by what I regard as an affront to democracy. Two weeks ago, Aberdeen City Council pulled the plug on the best opportunity that has been offered to us in my lifetime to transform our city centre and secure Aberdeen’s long-term future as a city with international appeal. That came after a referendum that achieved a 4,000 majority on a 52 per cent turnout of the electorate, which was a significantly more decisive vote than that which gave us the Labour-led city council, of which many of us are already ashamed.
Last Friday, I attended a summit meeting in Aberdeen that was run by Aberdeen city and shire economic future—the business-led organisation that is doing much good work to develop the economy of the city and its hinterland—to discuss the region’s economic future. Speaker after speaker extolled the area’s virtues and assets: the large number of businesses that are prospering in the oil and gas sector; the excellence of our universities and further education colleges; our magnificent scenery; the locally produced food that is so beloved of visitors to the area; and the work that is going on to attract new business and to develop a skilled young workforce to face the challenges of the future.
There are many positives in the north-east, but nearly every speaker at the ACSEF summit sounded a note of caution following the council’s decision on the city garden project. Everyone to whom I spoke privately—each one a success in the business world—was shocked and despondent about what happened at the previous council meeting.
The local papers are full of correspondence that is very largely opposed to the council’s actions, and my family tell me that the social media are buzzing with anger at what has happened. Do council members show any contrition or accept that their electorate might be right in what they want for the city’s future? Not a bit of it.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take no interventions from Labour on the matter, as Mr Macdonald well knows.
Despite the anger around what they have done, council members tell us that the debate is over and that the time has come to move on with unplanned, uncosted and unfinanced cosmetic improvements to the city centre, as put forward by the independent group. Do they not realise that Aberdeen city centre needs transformation, not just a superficial facelift? The council may think that the debate is over, but the citizens do not, and the council is quite wrong if it thinks that it can stifle debate over such an important matter as the city’s future.
Does Ms Milne agree that it is entirely hypocritical of those who refuse to move on after the referendum result now to suggest that everybody else should move on after this anti-democratic decision?
I cannot possibly disagree with that.
I know that Aberdeen is a great city. I have lived there and have worked for its citizens longer than most of the current councillors have done. However, at the present time it is not an attractive place to arrive in, as I see every Thursday evening when I return home from here. Indeed, the city centre is a complete turn-off for visitors to Aberdeen, as we see increasingly in the letters pages of The Press and Journal.
Titivating Union Terrace gardens and reopening its toilets, and resurrecting the age-old plans to pedestrianise Union Street, are not the answer. Transformation is what is needed and that is what the city garden project has to offer. I am glad that ACSEF has stated that the project is still one of its policy objectives, and I am pleased and humbled that Sir Ian Wood has not totally closed the door on future philanthropy from him for the benefit of the city.
The Labour council leader’s responses to questions at the ACSEF summit were derisory, and many heads were shaking with disbelief and dismay at what he had—or rather did not have—to offer. If that is the leadership within Aberdeen City Council, I, along with many other Aberdonians, want nothing of it. We will not forget the fantastic opportunity that has been so arrogantly thrown away by Labour, the independents and those Liberal Democrats who voted against the city garden project. I am in no doubt that they will be punished at the ballot box at the first available opportunity unless they now listen to the majority of people in Aberdeen who want to see a city centre worthy of the energy capital of Europe and take steps to deliver the transformational change that is required in a 21st century city aspiring to be the city of culture.
17:27
My colleague Kevin Stewart is to be congratulated on securing this important debate, although I wish that we did not need to have it. I would far rather that the city centre of Aberdeen was respected and admired or, as seemed possible just a few short months ago, at least headed in the direction of again being held in esteem.
I come at the subject from the standpoint of an expat Aberdonian, proud to say that I was born and raised in the granite city but, frankly, embarrassed by the state of its heart. The condition of the centre of Aberdeen is a subject that has long troubled the vast majority of Aberdonians—those still living there and those who, like me, retain a fondness for the place even though they have moved on. Thirty-six years ago, as a teenage Harlaw Academy pupil, I had a letter published in the Evening Express, which raised concerns about plans to construct the first of the now four massive shopping developments in the city centre. In the letter—actually, it was a poem and I am thankful to say that I do not retain a copy of it to quote from—I called on the unionist council administration not to rip the heart out of Union Street by allowing massive shopping centres to take a grip. My pleas, along with those of many other Aberdonians, fell on deaf ears, however, and the council ripped the heart out of not only Union Street, but George Street as well.
There is nothing wrong, as such, with the likes of the Trinity, Bon Accord and St Nicholas shopping centres. The problem is that, when we wander through those places, we could be anywhere—we could be in Edinburgh, Dundee or Glasgow. They do not provide a truly distinct experience, reflect the former magnificence of Aberdeen or complement its iconic heart. Their existence has also decimated the main thoroughfare. Times change—of course, they do—and the expectations of shoppers are different from what they were 30 years ago, but I ask anyone who knows the granite city to look 200yd either side of the Union Street/Market Street lights and tell me whether, over the past few decades, the centre of Aberdeen has changed for the better.
Like many Aberdonians, I was delighted to learn of the innovative plans to revitalise the heart of the granite city, which were based around Union Terrace gardens but encompassed the Denburn and St Nicholas house areas. Those plans offered a much-needed economic boost and the prospect of revitalising and restoring pride in the heart of the city. Bettering the environment around Union Street would inevitably have led to tackling the issues in that area.
I know that the plans did not attract universal support, but the people of Aberdeen had their say in a referendum and that should have been that. Instead, Europe’s oil capital finds itself in danger of becoming a laughing stock while, 60-odd miles down the road, Dundee is unveiling a visionary redevelopment of its waterfront area. In Aberdeen, we are being offered restored public conveniences and a cafe in Union Terrace Gardens.
When I left Aberdeen for the city of discovery in 1985, I could never have imagined that the former, which was booming at the time, would be overtaken by the latter as a magnet for shoppers and day trippers. However, I fear that, if we are not there yet, we are certainly headed that way.
There was a good reason why Sir Ian Wood came forward with his private finance offer for the project. He is a proud Aberdonian who wants better for his home city, and there are plenty like him: Brian Adam, Kevin Stewart, Mark McDonald, Nanette Milne and me, to name but five. Even the Labour Party, in its heart of hearts, must recognise that, as Kevin Stewart’s motion states,
“Aberdeen city centre needs transformational change.”
If it does not acknowledge that, it should step aside and let those who understand what is required get on with the job.
17:31
It is usual in a members’ business debate to start by saying how pleased we are to be taking part, but that is not the case tonight. I am disappointed not only that we have to debate the overturning of the outcome of a properly held local referendum, but that we must face up to the fact that the new Labour administration in Aberdeen lacks ambition for the city.
When the city garden project was first mooted, I had reservations about it. In particular, I was dismayed that the Peacock project was a casualty of the process. However, I accepted that the city council took the decision to move forward to the design stage—in fact, the design competition took the debate forward and opened people’s eyes to the possibilities.
The decision to hold a referendum reassured people that everyone’s views would be taken into account. There was a clear result in the referendum, which should have established the project in principle, but the new Labour administration has pulled the plug on it. The challenge now is not to keep harking back, but to find a way out of the mess.
I am dismayed that Aberdeen is now known as the Disney of the North: it disnae want this, and it disnae want that. In fact, the biggest worry is that it disnae know what it does want. All the indications so far show that the Labour administration has no coherent vision for the city. Rather than starting out by commanding trust and commitment, it has embarked on a road of confrontation and imposition, and that is not how modern councils should operate.
I agree that, as Kevin Stewart’s motion asserts,
“Aberdeen city centre needs transformational change.”
As the energy capital, Aberdeen powers the economy of the region and well beyond, and we must recognise that change is needed to maintain that prosperity. If our region is to remain competitive, our city centre must compare well with other European cities. Aberdeen would benefit from having a more vibrant city centre, and research has demonstrated that that is a key component of competitive regions. Some very poor planning decisions over the years have changed the way in which the city centre is used. The shopping centre areas are now quite disconnected, and the main thoroughfare of Union Street is in enormous terminal decline.
Nanette Milne spoke about Aberdeen city and shire economic future, which is a public-private partnership that brings together councils, Scottish Enterprise, the local chamber of commerce, Skills Development Scotland, VisitScotland and representatives from business and academia. It was set up to bring a collaborative approach to growing the economy and enhancing the quality of life in the region, and it has been an exemplar for other regions in Scotland. Its vision of a region that has
“one of the most robust and resilient economies in Europe with a reputation for opportunity, enterprise and inventiveness that will attract and retain world-class talent of all ages”
is surely one that we can all share.
However, I heard this summer that there is a question mark hanging over the city council’s on-going participation in ACSEF. Such insularity will not serve the city well, and I urge the city leaders to think again.
There are many good reasons to locate business in Aberdeen, but there are growing disincentives such as the lack of an integrated transport network and a vibrant city centre. Although we can look to the Government to tackle the first issue, we must rely on the local council to drive forward the latter. I urge the city council to put engagement and openness at the heart of how it does business from here on in, and to think big for our city.
Kevin Stewart talked about 19th century architects. Perhaps the council could learn from the words of Daniel Burnham, an American architect and urban planner who played a leading role in the master planning of Chicago and Washington DC a century ago. He said:
“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistence.”
17:35
I congratulate Kevin Stewart on securing the debate and bringing the attention of the Parliament to the disgraceful situation that the citizens of Aberdeen find themselves in. Their democratic will—in a referendum that secured more votes than the council elections and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament elections—has been overturned.
Members may think that this is purely an Aberdeen issue—I will remind them why it should not be. As others have mentioned, Aberdeen city and shire is driving economic growth in Scotland and the United Kingdom through our energy sector. It is the only truly global economy in the UK outside London. The area is a supply chain hub for the oil and gas industry and for jobs throughout the UK and beyond. It used to be said that if someone wanted to see the world, they joined the merchant navy—now, they join the oil and gas industry.
The energy sector in Aberdeen is booming. In fact, the whole of Aberdeen is booming on the back of the energy sector. Aberdeen has long been recognised as the oil capital of Europe and it is one of the most robust and resilient economies on the continent. The region has the second highest gross value added per head of population in the UK and the cities outlook 2012 survey mentioned Aberdeen as one of only a handful of cities with the strongest signs of economic growth. Indeed, at the ACSEF meeting on Friday that Nanette Milne mentioned, we heard of one company—General Electric—that has an immediate 200 vacancies and over the next three years it will have 3,000 vacancies.
Does the centre of Aberdeen reflect that status? No, it does not. I stood for election in Aberdeen North in 1979 saying that Aberdeen should not be the oil capital of Europe but end up with nothing to show for it. Now we have a local boy who has made exceptionally good who wants to reinvest some of his wealth back into the city, together with seven others who are prepared to put their hands in their pockets to kick-start the regeneration of the city of Aberdeen.
There has been a lot of focus on the gardens—I believe that the project would have been transformational, but it also included a revamp of the art gallery and many other parts of the city centre that desperately need work done on them. It is therefore incredible that an arrogant, petty, stagnant Labour-led administration rejected the wishes of Aberdonians to transform their city without even having an alternative plan.
I am grateful to Maureen Watt for taking an intervention. What would she have said if Labour had stood on a platform of not proceeding with the city garden project and had changed its mind after winning the election?
I reckon that the people of Aberdeen would have clapped their hands in glee and said that at last the Labour administration had seen sense.
There is currently a collective gloom in the city of Aberdeen and incredulity—there and beyond—that anybody could be so stupid as to reject such a generous offer from the private sector in Aberdeen. Other areas are asking whether they can have the money if Aberdeen does not want it.
It is not only that—the petty city councillors, as alluded to by Alison McInnes, threatened to cut off the funding from ACSEF, which is the economic driver in the region. I am glad that Sir Ian Wood has left his offer on the table and I hope that some councillors, with all the lobbying that they have had from their constituents, will change their minds. The transformational change that is required in the city centre is within the power of the Labour-led administration.
So that I can call the members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice from Kevin Stewart to extend the debate.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended for up to 30 minutes.—[Kevin Stewart.]
Motion agreed to.
17:39
There are three possible responses to Aberdeen City Council’s decision on Union Terrace gardens. One is outrage. We have heard plenty of that this evening, and sadly it was tinged with far too much personal abuse. Another possible response is delight. If those who disagreed with the council are entitled to their views, so are the many thousands of Aberdonians who are absolutely delighted by the final outcome.
The third possible response is to acknowledge that the decision was properly made by those who were duly elected to make it and then to move on and work together in the interests of the city and the region. That was the response of Fraser Forsyth who is the leader of the Conservative group on Aberdeen City Council. He was a strong supporter of the city garden project but, last week, he told The Press and Journal:
“It would be detrimental to the city to keep talking about a project that was rejected ... its time to move on and focus instead on finding alternative proposals to regenerate the city centre.”
Councillor Forsyth’s views are important. His was the only party to put support for the city garden project at the centre of its election campaign. If Conservative councillors are clear that the project is dead, then dead it is; all the girning in the world will not bring it back when such a key supporter says that the time for debate is over and the time to move on has come.
If the case was made for another project, would the member hold a referendum and accept the result?
Certainly not. As the Labour group on Aberdeen City Council made clear at the time, a referendum was not an appropriate way of making a borrowing decision on behalf of a public authority. That is why it did not support that approach.
It is now for ministers to choose either to follow Fraser Forsyth’s example and support future investment in Aberdeen City Centre or to do as some of the back benchers have suggested and take the huff and walk away. However, Aberdeen’s success is too important to the Scottish economy to be put on hold. I hope that ministers will now step back from some of the rash words that we have heard in recent days and consider Aberdeen’s revised bid for tax increment funding on its merits.
There are plenty of reasons for the Government to invest in the success of Aberdeen, as colleagues who attended the local economic summit on Friday afternoon will know. Mark Higginson of PricewaterhouseCoopers told us:
“Aberdeen must attract around 120,000 new recruits ... by 2022 if it is to realise its potential as a global energy capital”,
while Derek Provan of Aberdeen airport warned that
“future development ... could be put at risk by a lack of investment in the already congested road system”.
That is why it should be welcomed that Aberdeen City Council confirmed today that improved public transport access to the airport could be achieved under a revised TIF bid.
Paul Skinner of Infrastructure UK also spoke on Friday, and we heard that the United Kingdom Treasury is willing to consider supporting a bond issue by Aberdeen City Council to pay for essential infrastructure. A bond issue of up to £500 million would certainly be of interest to the many oil companies that are keen to invest in the city’s future success.
I commend UK ministers for their willingness to work with the city council to enable essential infrastructure to be built, recognising, as they do, the huge contribution that Aberdeen city and shire make to the UK economy. The question is whether, after 13 years of devolution, the current Scottish Government can match that commitment. That choice is for Scottish National Party ministers to make. The time for outrage or delight over last month’s decision is surely over. We need leaders who are big enough to go beyond emotional responses and are prepared to work together to agree on what must be done and how. If local government and Westminster can work together to fulfil Aberdeen’s global potential, the Holyrood Government must not be left behind.
17:44
Let us deal with some of the myths that are going around. First, Crawford Langley oversaw the referendum, and his reputation is beyond question when it comes to overseeing elections and voting processes. He had no qualms about the fairness of the outcome of the referendum.
Furthermore, the question that was put was worded by the friends of Union Terrace gardens—a campaign group that opposed the city garden project. That is the wording that the city council chose. Mike Shepherd of the friends of Union Terrace gardens stated at the council meeting following a referendum that, if the result had gone the way he wanted it to, he would have accepted it. Therefore, it is not that the referendum process was flawed, merely that the result was not what those who campaigned against the project wanted, so they sought to undermine the process of the referendum.
It is clear that the people expressed their will in the referendum, but Labour has imposed its will on the people of Aberdeen. That is the difference. The scheme that was put forward at the council meeting was not one that had featured in the manifesto of anybody who stood for election, and it had no basis of public support. One of the key tests that the Government stated that it wanted to see achieved during the TIF pilot process was public support, which was achieved by the referendum.
I was a convert to the project. It took time for me to consider the design and its potential, but once I had seen the design that Aberdeen City Gardens Trust brought forward I was a convert to it.
Which one?
The granite web. That is clearly what I was talking about.
I would have respected the result of the referendum whichever way it had gone. If the majority had been in favour of the retention of Union Terrace gardens, I would have respected that, but it did not go that way. Those who are now choosing to impose their will should reflect on that.
I was interested to hear Richard Baker’s remarks about how the decision is about Labour keeping manifesto pledges and commitments because, in the papers recently, Labour has been keen on pushing the notion of the pedestrianisation of Union Street. I found a leaflet from the council elections that was put out in the Torry/Ferryhill ward by Yvonne Allan, who is now a councillor and deputy convener of the finance committee, and Kathryn Russell, who was the unsuccessful candidate. It states:
“Kathryn says, ‘The pedestrianisation of Union Street would increase traffic congestion in Ferryhill. Yvonne and I would oppose such proposals.’”
Prior to the election, there was opposition to the pedestrianisation of Union Street, but now, with Labour in power, it is proposed. I do not have a problem if people recognise that the facts and circumstances surrounding a project have changed, but the facts surrounding the city garden project did not change. The people supported it, and it was up to the Labour Party to be grown-up enough to accept that result.
Let us look at the issue of TIF funding. Labour put up several straw men during the evolution of the city garden project. First, it attacked the general concept of what was proposed, despite the fact that, as my colleague Brian Adam so eloquently described, it had been proposed by Labour councillors in the past. Indeed, Len Ironside, who is convener of social work on the council, proposed a millennium square during his time as council leader, which would have had a similar effect of covering over the Denburn and raising Union Terrace gardens to street level.
Labour then attacked the aesthetics by talking about the design and how unattractive it was. Both of those arguments were resoundingly defeated by the referendum result, so Labour moved them to the side and started to attack the funding model. That is where it put most of its ammunition between the referendum result and the decision in August.
Labour is now saying that we should give the council TIF, which it attacked so vehemently, for as yet unspecified, uncosted projects. Labour cannot have it both ways. It has killed the goose that laid the golden egg by rejecting the project. That will be Labour’s legacy, and it will be to its eternal shame.
17:48
I thank Kevin Stewart for bringing this important and timely motion to the chamber for debate. It is timely because an opportunity still exists to take the issue forward following Aberdeen City Council’s decision at the end of August to abandon Aberdeen’s city garden project.
Lewis Macdonald mentioned this Administration’s record in relation to Aberdeen. The SNP has a proud and strong record of supporting all our cities, but particularly the city of Aberdeen, whether by addressing the financial concerns around grant distribution, through the massive investment in the city, or through some of my colleagues—in a previous life, as elected members—sorting out the local finances of Aberdeen City Council.
The future of Aberdeen is crucial not just to the city and its people but to the whole of Scotland, such is the scale and significance of that great city. Aberdeen is Europe’s energy capital and it is recognised globally as having the second highest concentration of offshore energy expertise after Houston, Texas. It is home to multinational operators and contractors, as well as to many Scottish supply and service companies. The city is renowned for its technology and skills, supported by two universities and two colleges of further education. The energy industry also supports a thriving business community with a robust professional and financial services sector.
I could go on about the strengths of Aberdeen, but we prefer to focus on the opportunities that have been presented to Aberdeen. We therefore noted with great interest the proposals to transform Aberdeen’s centre by redeveloping the Union Terrace gardens to boost the city’s prospects for further global investment. Following an international competition to redesign the Union Terrace gardens, it was announced in January that the granite way proposal had been chosen as the winning entry for the city garden project. The design sought to transform the gardens into a contemporary space for park and cultural activities.
A referendum was held in Aberdeen last February. The residents participating in the referendum were asked to choose between retaining the existing Union Terrace gardens or replacing them with the proposed city garden project design. The facts speak for themselves. A total of 165,830 voting packs were sent out with 86,568 votes cast. The turnout of some 52 per cent far exceeded many people’s expectations. It was announced on 2 March that 45,301 people had voted for the city garden project design, while a total of 41,175 people voted for retaining the Union Terrace gardens. Voters had therefore backed the project by a majority of 4,126.
The Scottish Futures Trust required that TIF bids should include enabling infrastructure. Will the minister tell us what enabling infrastructure was included in the original bid? Will he also tell us whether an increased amount of enabling infrastructure in a revised bid might indeed strengthen the TIF bid he has received?
I do not have that information to hand, but I am happy to provide it. What I do have is the advice given by the council to councillors and the Scottish Government and to which I will refer shortly.
The demonstration of public support for the project was an essential step in taking forward the city’s tax increment finance proposal. Mr Macdonald has made the point that the city council had a mandate not to proceed with the project. I would argue that the referendum was the mandate to deliver because councils will be elected on a range of promises. Mr Macdonald’s argument would suggest that the SNP has a mandate to go straight to independence for Scotland by virtue of the fact that it won the election. Of course, a referendum is a far more appropriate way to test any particular proposition, as attractive as that concept may be.
Is Mr Mackay aware of the Office of Communications finding that its rules on advertising codes were breached in the referendum campaign? Does he not realise that that is a serious issue about the fairness of how the referendum was carried out? Is he dismissing Ofcom’s concerns?
I am happy to confirm that I have a minister with a very strong record, as per the Electoral Commission’s recent report into the running of elections. I believe that the findings of that referendum are robust. I am confident that they reflected the wishes of the people of Aberdeen.
On the back of public support, we wished to consider Aberdeen’s plans further to use tax increment finance to redevelop Union Terrace gardens because of the potential of the proposal specifically to lever in private sector contributions—potentially some £55 million from private donors—and to improve public confidence. However, in view of the local situation it was necessary to gauge that public support, which was demonstrated through the referendum.
Following the referendum result in favour of the project, we were looking forward to receiving a full TIF business case showing how TIF would be used to support the investment of—
Will the minister give way?
Of course.
The minister is a proud man from Renfrew. If a local Renfrew person offered £50 million of investment for a project in his town that was backed by the public, does he believe that Renfrewshire Council should bite their hands off to take that money?
I cannot think of any circumstances in which the people of Renfrew would turn down a donation of £50 million to their community and, in so doing, turn down Government support that could refresh their city or town centre in the way the Labour Party in Aberdeen has done.
It is therefore surprising and disappointing to learn that on 22 August Aberdeen City Council voted to abandon the city garden project. It did so in the full knowledge that it would terminate the application bid—which otherwise could have been progressed—to support the regeneration of Aberdeen. Why am I so confident? I have here the advice given by the council to councillors, which said that, without the private sector donations on the scale of the city garden project, the four other projects are not viable as a TIF scheme because they cannot lever sufficient private finance. There we have it. Nanette Milne is absolutely correct—it is Labour that pulled the plug on the scheme for the city of Aberdeen.
I again ask the minister about the criteria for the application. Will he confirm that there was no requirement for private sector engagement in the original invitation to bid and what was required was that the bid should not be retail-led or have a renewables focus and that it should incorporate an enabling infrastructure component larger than £20 million? Does he not agree that a revised TIF bid will meet those criteria?
I would be obliged if the minister began to conclude.
I confirm that the progress that was being made with the Aberdeen application was in harmony with what the Scottish Government was looking for. What Labour has done in Aberdeen is pulled the plug on the established process and taken it back to square one, signalling a substantial change to any potential application, with no tested public support and no obvious private sector contributions. That is a complete change to the position that was presented previously and which inspired so much confidence.
There is time for me to close with an opportunity. The project need not be dead. The Labour Party may have killed off the aspirations this week, but I know that Labour members are not necessarily averse to U-turns, especially if it might be in the interests of the people that they represent. I encourage the Labour Party in Aberdeen to return to the Scottish Government with a business case that involves the city gardens and we will look at it again in making the project happen—otherwise, it will forgo the generous priority status that it was enjoying.
Meeting closed at 17:57.