Planning
The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney, on national developments in planning. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement; there should therefore be no interventions.
Today's statement honours the commitment to provide Parliament with the criteria that the Government will use in designating national developments in the national planning framework. I would also like to take this opportunity to set out the Government's approach to planning reform, the link between planning and the Government's central purpose, and our aspirations for the national planning framework.
The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 was passed by a majority of 114 to 13 in the previous session of Parliament. That represents a significant endorsement and, as I have gone round Scotland over the summer, I have been struck by the general support for the purpose of the legislation. However, there is much still to do to deliver a modern, effective, efficient and responsive planning system, and we will continue to develop the direction of travel that was set by the act, which, as I said, was passed during the previous session of Parliament.
We have consulted on the designation orders and statutory guidance for strategic development planning authorities. This autumn, draft regulations on other aspects of development planning, development management, appeals, enforcement and the conduct of examinations will be the subject of consultation. We will take the opportunity with appropriate dialogue and debate to get this right and to ensure that processes are proportionate, and we will deliver better outcomes.
Planning is in essence a local government function, and some councils have already altered their practices and approaches to embrace the aims of the modernised system. I encourage more to do so. They should take those steps in the knowledge that we are not seeking to change local government boundaries, remove functions from local authorities, or reopen the debate about the underlying principles of planning reform.
I believe that the planning system must contribute significantly to meeting the Government's overall purpose, which is to promote increased and sustainable economic growth. The publication, next month, of the Government's economic strategy will set out how we intend to improve Scotland's economic performance. Planning will have an important part to play in that strategy.
Ensuring that planning makes a contribution to sustainable economic growth certainly does not mean unfettered development. The qualities of Scotland's cities, towns and countryside are critical assets in promoting the country internationally, as well as in providing places for people to work, live and play. Promoting development regardless of location, quality or environmental impact is therefore firmly not on our agenda. Development must not be at the cost of damaging our world-renowned built and natural heritage. However, economic benefits can and should hold sway over protecting vested interests or knee-jerk resistance to any change.
We need development. A country of 5 million people in the north-west of Europe will not prosper if we place unnecessary or unreasonable constraints on development or take decisions at a pace that discourages potential investors. A thriving economy requires investment in jobs, homes, schools, hospitals and facilities for leisure and recreation. Investment in infrastructure—transport, energy, flood defences, water and drainage, and waste—is fundamental, not an optional extra. Some of those developments raise issues of genuine concern for local communities, but developments must happen somewhere and these are decisions that governments—national and local—must get right to support Scotland's long-term interest.
Early and broadly based discussion with local communities and other parties, including business, on the future direction of change in their area is a fundamental part of the reformed planning system. We remain committed to that. Our expectation is that debate will be held and decisions made in development plans, not through objections to individual planning applications. However, I fully accept that not every development can be anticipated and that planning must demonstrate that it is sufficiently fleet of foot and responsive to emerging opportunities.
The role of the national planning framework is to set a strategy for Scotland's long-term development; in other words, it is about the sort of place that we want Scotland to be—or, more accurately, what sorts of places we want in Scotland, as we have a remarkably diverse natural and built heritage.
The first national planning framework, which was published in 2004, was well received. It was welcomed by local authorities, the business community and the planning profession, and it won international recognition as an example of good practice in spatial planning. In acknowledging the diversity and potential of each part of Scotland, it raised the profile of geography in policy making, and contributed to the development of a renewed interest in long-term strategic thinking and a belief that we can shape our future rather than react to events.
Although the first framework brought benefits as regards co-ordinated thinking, there was a view that it could have played a more active delivery role. That was reflected in the report of the Parliament's Finance Committee of March 2005, in which the committee concluded that
"there should be a strengthened national planning framework which enables better direction, coordination and prioritisation of project and programme spend".
From the point of view of legislation, aspiration and the link with the national conversation that the Government has started, I believe that the timing of our second national planning framework could not be better.
The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 put the framework on a statutory footing and the relevant parts of the act have been commenced. The framework must be prepared with the objective of contributing to sustainable development. Strategic environmental assessment has an important part to play in achieving that goal and our approach to it has been well received. Ministers are required to prepare a participation statement that sets out how they will engage the people of Scotland in preparing the framework. The seminars that my officials have held across Scotland have revealed strong interest in and support for the framework.
The framework is about what we want Scotland to be like in 20 to 25 years' time and where things need to happen to make that possible, so it can be an important vehicle for our national conversation. The First Minister has asked
"every Scot to pause and reflect not on the kind of country we are—but on the kind of country we could be—we should be."
The Government poses the question, "What do we want Scotland to be by 2030?" That is what we are asking people in Scotland to think about.
For too long, the climate around the discussion of planning issues has been adversarial, with the emphasis being placed on objection and protest. Our aspirations for the debate around the national planning framework are identical to those for "Choosing Scotland's Future". Planning is about shaping our future, so we ask the country to focus on what is best for Scotland and what offers the best opportunities for future generations. Today, I say optimistically what the First Minister said about the national conversation:
"let us have this debate in a context of civility, intelligence and maturity."
The second national planning framework will guide Scotland's spatial development to 2030. It will take forward the spatial aspects of the Government's economic strategy by highlighting the importance of place and places. It will identify key priorities for investment to enable each part of the country to play to its strengths in building a Scotland that is wealthier and fairer, smarter, greener, healthier and safer and stronger.
The framework will focus strongly on priorities for the improvement of infrastructure to support Scotland's long-term development. On transport infrastructure, it will draw on the work that is being undertaken as part of the strategic transport projects review to further our objectives of cutting journey times between our cities and easing congestion. It will identify strategic priorities for investment in energy and environmental infrastructure. It will reflect the Government's policy commitments on sustainable economic development, climate change, regeneration and housing supply. It will help to move us towards more sustainable patterns of development and a low carbon economy.
The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 makes provision for the national planning framework to be used to designate certain projects as national developments. Major strategic transport, energy and environmental infrastructure projects may fall into that category of development. The essential test will be whether the development is of strategic importance to Scotland's long-term sustainable economic growth. Designation in the framework is the mechanism for establishing the need for such developments, so that any inquiry focuses on issues such as design and the mitigation of environmental impacts, not on matters of principle, which this Government, like the previous Administration, believes are matters for political debate and decision.
The projects that will be designated as national developments will be fundamental to the delivery of the spatial strategy that we will set out in the second national planning framework. They will help to unlock the potential of priority locations for sustainable economic growth and regeneration. They will be not free-standing projects, but planned strategic interventions as part of an overall strategy.
Let me make it clear, though, that designating a project as a national development will not mean making a spending commitment. No minister can make commitments over such a length of time. Indeed, some developments might well be funded entirely by the private sector. What the designation should provide is an indication of relative priorities for investment, thereby helping to create the certainty and confidence that business and local communities seek.
We have been keen to keep the criteria that we will use to identify national developments as clear and as simple as possible. Our approach will be that projects that may be identified as national developments are those that are considered relevant to the following six factors. They must make a significant contribution to Scotland's sustainable economic development. They must strengthen Scotland's links with the rest of the world. They must deliver strategic improvements in internal connectivity. They must make a significant contribution to the achievement of climate change, renewable energy or waste management targets. They must be essential elements of a programme of investment in national infrastructure, or they must raise strategic issues of more than regional importance—for example, projects with impacts on more than one city region.
The first criterion reflects the priority that we give to achieving higher and sustainable economic growth. Projects that are critical to achieving that objective will be identified as national developments. The second criterion reflects our commitment to promoting Scotland as a place in which to do business, as a location for investment and as a top tourism destination. That means a Scotland that is well connected to the rest of the world.
The third criterion reflects our commitment to an effective national transport infrastructure that makes journey times faster and more reliable; improves connections in order to build and sustain economic growth; provides travel opportunities for employment, business, leisure and tourism; and links cities, towns and rural communities throughout Scotland. The fourth criterion reflects our commitment to creating a greener Scotland and specific commitments on reducing CO2 emissions, making the most of Scotland's renewable energy potential and improving our management and recycling of waste.
The fifth criterion recognises that key individual projects may be critical to the successful delivery of wider programmes of investment in national infrastructure in areas such as renewable energy development, electricity transmission and waste management. The sixth and final criterion ensures that the focus remains firmly on the top tier of projects that are genuinely of national significance, which are those that are important for more than one part of Scotland.
The projects that the national planning framework will identify as national developments are likely to be relatively small in number and genuinely of national strategic significance. We do not intend to use the national planning framework to take decisions that are properly the preserve of local government.
National developments will not be conjured out of thin air. We do not intend that potentially contentious national projects should emerge for the first time in the national planning framework without any prior policy context. Projects that are identified as national developments will be likely already to have been the subject of consultation and debate as part of the development of existing policy commitments and programmes, such as those relating to the economy, transport, energy and waste management. They will be projects such as the replacement Forth crossing, for example.
The national planning framework will not make policy in areas such as the economy, transport, energy and waste management, although it should provide opportunities to improve co-ordination of effort and investment in certain locations. Planning authorities will have to ensure that their development plans fully reflect the national infrastructure needs that are identified in the national planning framework.
In the case of energy, the Government is firmly opposed to further nuclear power stations, so let me make it absolutely clear that the framework will not identify locations for new or expanded nuclear power stations. However, it will address the geographic implications, opportunities and benefits around the generation and transmission of clean energy.
To put it simply, national developments will in essence be infrastructure projects, that in the Scottish Government's view, have a critical contribution to make to our overall purpose of creating a more successful country.
The projects that we propose to designate as national developments will be identified in the consultative draft of the national planning framework, which we intend to issue before the end of the year. The draft framework will contain a statement of ministers' reasons for considering that there is a need for the developments in question. On publication of the draft framework, there will be a further, major round of consultation, including a series of regional seminars. Where the draft framework can be sufficiently specific about the location of a national development, additional, targeted community engagement will be undertaken.
Our proposals for national developments will be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament as part of the statutory process of consultation on the national planning framework, and we will seek to proceed by consensus. There will be opportunities for scrutiny, comment and debate throughout the process.
The second national planning framework offers a timely opportunity for the Government to set the tone on how it wants the debate on planning issues to be conducted, to demonstrate how an ambitious but stable planning regime can provide the necessary opportunity, certainty and stability, and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that decisions on strategic infrastructure investment are taken as part of a long-term strategy for Scotland's sustainable economic growth. I look forward to discussing it with members.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to move to the next item of business no later than 4.50 pm.
In the spirit of civility, I thank Mr Swinney for advance sight of his statement.
I welcome Mr Swinney's quotation from a report by the Finance Committee in the previous session of the Parliament, which I think was produced before he became a member of that committee. As Mr Swinney said, the Finance Committee recommended that
"there should be a strengthened national planning framework which enables better direction, coordination and prioritisation of project and programme spend".
The problem is that the criteria that the cabinet secretary has produced do not necessarily implement that recommendation, particularly in relation to co-ordination and prioritisation. The criteria do not lend themselves to measurement or systematic evaluation. They are tick-box criteria.
If we are to have a proper national planning framework, projects that are designated as national developments must be seen to be truly national priorities—the process must be completely transparent. The Scottish transport appraisal guidance system allows us to compare projects and evaluate the coherence and appropriateness of programmes. Why cannot that system be used to prioritise projects and feed into a national framework? Will the minister reconsider the criteria, to ascertain how prioritisation might be made more transparent, so that we can all see how projects end up in the framework?
Such transparency is particularly important, given that people will be asked to make their views known not through local planning arrangements but through national planning arrangements. It is clear that not only must the mechanism whereby projects are chosen be transparent, but people must be empowered to take part in the process. What approach will be taken to empowerment and community engagement on designated national developments in the national planning framework?
The priorities in the national planning framework are not just the Government's priorities; they are Scotland's priorities, especially when there is a minority Administration and the party of Government changes. It is important that there should be broad consensus on how to progress infrastructure projects, which are developed over a long period. Will the cabinet secretary pick up on his colleague Bruce Crawford's comments on increased involvement and parliamentary accountability, which were made before the election, and adopt those ideas in his approach to the national planning framework?
Des McNulty is right—I quoted from a Finance Committee report that came before my own vigorous contribution to the committee's proceedings, most of which I suspect I shall regret in my period in office as finance minister. I may as well say that now, because I will have to say it a few times in the period ahead.
I am interested in Des McNulty's point on the criteria for national development. He will know from the contributions that I have made to the Finance Committee and in my more general contributions to the discourse in Parliament that it is important that we are able to see the tangible impact of the decisions that we take. I am minded to move to a system in which we consider the achievement of outcomes in terms of the policy measures that we introduce. We must have an effective assessment process to judge what will be considered to be national developments and be in a position to evaluate what steps will be taken towards those decisions.
I assure Des McNulty that the criteria that I have set out are by no means a tick-box set. In relation to the classification of national developments, the criteria will put a high test on ensuring that we join up elements of decision making, so that we do not simply take a decision on a particular project that has a consequence on another area of policy that is of equal significance to the Government, to Parliament and to the country. I accept the need for transparency in considering those issues.
That brings me to Des McNulty's point about the involvement of the public in the process. My firm view about the planning system—and the Government's view in taking forward this agenda—is that we must maximise public involvement and participation in formulating the priorities. Clearly, Government will have its own contribution to make, but the involvement of people in the early stage of forming the priorities, the direction and the way in which developments will be undertaken is essential because it will avoid trouble later on. Such trouble can be disruptive and damaging not only to the planning process, but to the health and development of our economy.
That in turn brings me to Mr McNulty's final point, about the involvement of Parliament. I accept what he says. We are in a completely different political era because, in the past few months, the people who were never supposed to get into Government got into Government. "Thank goodness", I hear members say. To me, that says that to ensure that we can move Scotland in an agreed direction of travel in a number of areas, we must bring together political opinion with community opinion and agree on shared priorities in which we all have confidence. As we go through the national planning framework, I hope that we will have the opportunity to encourage that process within the parliamentary process. As always, I look forward to Mr McNulty's contribution to that process.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I congratulate him on his ingenuity in managing to link the national planning framework with the national conversation. It is quite an achievement to link planning with independence, but I rather suspect that there is more appetite for planning reform than there is for independence.
I appreciate that the cabinet secretary cannot comment in too much detail on future spending, whether in the short term or the medium term, but—given the welcome words in the statement on prioritisation of strategic infrastructure projects nationally—will he confirm that incremental spending increases will be targeted at the infrastructure projects that will have maximum impact on economic growth, and that the same tests will be applied to allocation decisions on non-infrastructure spending?
The link between planning and independence is planning for independence, which is perhaps what is on the minds of some of us here.
On Derek Brownlee's point about public spending, we are beginning to encroach on issues that we will, in due course, discuss with Parliament. What is important, however, is that we give significant recognition to the structure of decision making that has been introduced by this Government. On coming into office, we have established as our purpose an increase in sustainable economic growth in Scotland. Our decisions in support of that purpose are taken through the prism of five strategic objectives, which I have set out and which Mr Brownlee does not need me to repeat. That purpose applies across the board on our policy decisions as an Administration—we will take decisions according to that structure of decision making to ensure that we support at all times our purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth in Scotland. Obviously, those issues will become clearer as we consider the outcome of the spending review, in due course.
I share Mr Swinney's desire that any conversation of whatever variety—local or national—be conducted in a civil, intelligent and mature fashion. That does not necessarily mean that we will agree, but we will do our best to conduct it in those terms.
Mr Swinney's statement could have been read in large part by his predecessor as planning minister, Johann Lamont, although that might be unfair to both of them.
I note and agree with Derek Brownlee's point about the link to independence. The point about "planning for independence" is that Mr Swinney will be planning for an extremely long time if that is his role in the new Government.
I will ask several specific questions on points that he made this afternoon. I noted his link to the Government's economic strategy—indeed, he has just referred to it again in response to Mr Brownlee. Why will the council of economic advisers not have an input into the spending review over which he now presides? If I am to understand the BBC reports from last night, that spending review is, I regret to say, currently being briefed to the press rather than to Parliament.
I notice that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change is beside Mr Swinney, which I welcome. How does he plan to achieve easing of congestion, strategic links and improved connections—all important objectives on which many members agree with him—when the Scottish National Party has cancelled the Edinburgh airport rail link project and wants to build more roads? That cancellation is a truly bad decision. I accept that Mr Swinney does not agree with me on that: it is, nonetheless, a bad decision.
I draw Mr Swinney's attention to the report by the Sustainable Development Commission that was published last Wednesday and announced in Parliament. I am sure that he has had an opportunity at least to glance through it—I suggest that the Government read it carefully before it pronounces on major transport projects. In particular, I draw his attention to the comments on reducing CO2 emissions and making the most of Scotland's renewable energy potential.
Mr Swinney also said that economic benefits can and should hold sway over protecting vested interests or knee-jerk resistance to change. That is a sentiment and approach with which I entirely agree. Therefore, why did Alex Salmond declare last Friday green energy day but cancel a major wind farm development in Aberdeenshire on Monday? Is the reality of Mr Swinney's Government that, on wind power, it wants to oppose schemes where opposition exists, as it did on Monday? Does not it realise the huge potential for wind power in the strategic planning document that it has announced this afternoon, not only for clean energy production but for the manufacturing industries that can go with it? Will wind farms be judged to be small and medium-sized developments rather than significant developments under the national planning framework? Does that mean that the Government's policy of a local moratorium will become one of a national moratorium? Today is an appropriate time for Mr Swinney's Government to be clear on that. Not only Parliament but the industry expects clarity, so a straight answer would be welcome indeed.
I thank Tavish Scott for a long question, which is what I used to ask him, although I will not apologise for that.
Mr Scott said that the statement could have been delivered by Johann Lamont. That may be the case and, to be frank, it is not a particularly bad thing in the context of the planning debate. I am trying to encourage a debate in which Parliament focuses on shared priorities in order to ensure that we provide exactly the type of continuity that Mr McNulty was asking about, and some agreement on direction. I would have thought that that was to be welcomed, but I live in hope that consensus politics might gravitate towards Mr Scott at some stage in the future. I travel optimistically on that.
I assure Mr Scott that the council of economic advisers will have a number of opportunities to provide input to thinking on a number of policy areas that affect the Government's economic strategy, and to work on the issues that I am raising in connection with the national planning framework. The advisers have been appointed to give us the distinguished international input that they can provide.
On transport projects, the criteria that I have set out give a clear steer as to where the Government is going. Our investment programmes for the rail industry and a variety of other public transport projects are intended to encourage greater use of public transport and less use of cars. I am not going to talk about the Edinburgh airport rail link, because Mr Stevenson will make a statement on it to Parliament in due course, as Parliament requested in June.
I had an interesting meeting with Professor Bebbington, a vice-chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, and I read the commission's report with interest. There remains a big challenge for the Government to face in relation to sustainable development, which it will address. We did not inherit a perfect situation—the commission's report highlights adequately the situation that we inherited.
I acknowledge that wind farms are a sensitive issue. Mr Scott mentioned the decisions that the Government took in response to recommendations from reporters on wind farms, but he omitted to mention that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Mr Mather, approved the Harestanes wind farm in the south of Scotland which, if I recollect correctly, is the second largest wind farm that has been approved—I am looking behind me for a nod from Mr Mather. The Government is prepared to take such decisions and it is churlish to suggest otherwise.
We went over this ground before the election. I remember when the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, quoted the Prime Minister as saying that wind farms cannot go everywhere. That is the reality of the planning legislation; wind farms are not appropriate everywhere. The Government will assess decisions based on the information in front of us, exactly as we have done so far. Mr Scott suggested that there is an issue with the Government's stance on that point, but I really do not understand what further clarity he is seeking.
From now on we should have short questions and, I hope, short answers, too.
I draw to the cabinet secretary's attention the controversial Caltongate development, which is planned at the heart of our historic capital city. Leading conservationists fear that it will threaten Edinburgh's prized world heritage status and the community in the old town feels that the previous administration in the City of Edinburgh Council held little more than a tick-box consultation on it. Given the importance of our architecture and built environment to the tourism sector, not only in this city but throughout Scotland, will the cabinet secretary assure Parliament that the Government will do all that it can to ensure that developments do not put economic growth before the built heritage?
It is a pleasure to welcome Shirley-Anne Somerville to Parliament. I wish her well in serving the people of the Lothians.
I cannot get involved in the debate about the particular development that she mentions, but I reiterate what I said in my statement: we cannot have development just at any price. Our purpose as a Government is to encourage more sustainable economic growth, but that cannot happen just at any price. In my statement I referred to the importance of protecting our natural and built heritage, which contributes formidably to Scotland's strength, reputation, prestige and attractiveness. We should undertake our development activity in that context.
I welcome the opportunity to ask the cabinet secretary about planning. Although I acknowledge the reasons for including major national strategic transport projects in the national planning framework, I am a little concerned about the interface between the framework and development plans.
The supporting road network for a new Forth crossing could be at odds with a local development plan to provide for an extension to a village, which could include houses, shops and businesses. I do not expect the cabinet secretary to comment on a particular case, but in such circumstances what part of the planning system, if any, would take precedence? How would the cabinet secretary expect planning officials both centrally and locally to handle the discussion?
How will he ensure that as many people as possible are part of the development of the national planning framework and local development plans, and that they do not just become dissatisfied objectors who are fighting one another?
Mary Mulligan raises a fair and substantial point. Compatibility between decisions that are taken in the national planning framework and the development of local development plans is essential, but that is easier said than done. The essential step towards making it happen is to have regular and substantial dialogue between the Government officials who are preparing the national planning framework and local authority officials. Ministers will also be involved in those discussions.
I stress that, as we envisage that the national planning framework will contain a relatively small number of developments, there will be no need for a large number of such conversations. The importance of the new planning regime that is required under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 lies in more regular updating of development plans. I hope that, as a consequence, any possible loss of continuity in the matters that Mary Mulligan raised will be minimised.
Regarding the involvement of individuals in formulating the contents of the national planning framework and wider development plans at local level, I reiterate a point that I made earlier: the way to establish a stable, efficient, ordered and focused planning regime is to carry out early consultation and ensure satisfaction with the content of the plans, so that specific decisions can be taken in the context of those plans. There will be exceptions, but we have to keep them to a minimum because that is where the chance of friction arises between members of the public and the development process.
To secure input to the national planning framework, the Government will undertake an active communication and participation exercise involving groups around the country, local authorities and other organisations. Parliament also has a big role to play in that exercise.
I concur, as I think everyone would, with the view that we need local and national development, but that it must be sensitively handled. Even so, it will not please all the people all the time, and probably not the lean machine known as Mr Tavish Scott.
Like many others, I welcome early consultation. The word "consultation" has lost most of its currency and has been devalued over many years. I heard the cabinet secretary's answer to Mary Mulligan's question, which anticipated one that I was going to ask about public involvement in consultation. However, given that parliamentary committees are masters of their own agendas and fate, what role will they have in dealing with the national planning framework?
On a different matter, I commend to the ministerial team and MSPs the Planning Aid for Scotland event in the garden lobby on Wednesday 26 September. That is a plug. At that event, all MSPs can hone their consultation skills.
I cannot imagine that Christine Grahame needs to develop her consultation skills any further. She is very good at consulting.
The participation of members of the public in consultation on development plans and the national planning framework lies at the heart of the process that I set out today. The Government will invest a lot of energy in ensuring that that dialogue is effective.
It is not for me to direct parliamentary committees—I assume that that is the point that Christine Grahame makes in her question. The national planning framework will sit with Parliament for 60 days and the Government will, whatever participation committees wish to have, be more than happy to make whatever contribution they require.
I welcome the substantial—in fact, more or less complete—continuity in carrying forward the previous Administration's policies on the national planning framework and planning more generally. A fundamental principle of planning reform was early participation. Will the cabinet secretary say a little more about the forthcoming participation statement—the timing and possibly the substance?
I also welcome in particular the climate change criterion, but will the cabinet secretary explain whether it refers to specific developments or whether all developments will be expected to contribute on climate change?
I welcome Malcolm Chisholm's contribution, and I record the fact that a large part of the input into the legislation that Parliament decided on came during his time as a minister. I congratulate him on that.
On public participation, we will introduce the national planning framework before the end of the year. There will be opportunities, through a series of seminars around the country and other participation events, to secure input from members of the public. Obviously, Parliament will also have the opportunity to create further dialogue.
On climate change, the Government has been clear in setting out its legislative intention to create statutory targets. The nature of those commitments means that, like other authorities, we have to take decisions on a case-by-case basis that is consistent with supporting that direction of travel. The Government will pursue that as a line of approach, and I look forward to discussing how we can bring effect to that agenda long before we consider the introduction of the climate change bill.
I had a few successes and many glorious defeats during the amendment stage of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. I will draw Mr Swinney's attention to one of each.
First, the sustainable development duty gives the minister and his colleagues the duty to carry out their functions in relation to the NPF with the objective of contributing to sustainable development. It is not just an objective—it is the objective, so will the cabinet secretary tell us why the list of criteria appears to be one of alternatives rather than one that places sustainable development as the criterion that has primacy, which is what the legislation appears to suggest should happen?
Secondly, I have been less able to convince my colleagues on robust parliamentary scrutiny. I agree with the earlier comments that when there is a minority Administration, Parliament—rather than ministers who do not represent a legislative majority—should have the final say. I was not able to convince the ministers at the time, but I gained some support from my SNP colleagues. Will the minister tell us whether he will persuade the Minister for Parliamentary Business to propose a timetable that will allow all committees the time to take part in the process? Will he also say whether his Government will abide by the vote of Parliament on the NPF?
I suppose that the statement will be welcomed in some quarters but not in others, but a direction of travel was established by the passage of the 2006 act, albeit that it was without Mr Harvie's consent. Rather than reopen the contents of that legislation, we are developing that line of travel. The Government has come to that judgment in a spirit of consensus and in trying to establish the broadest possible support for the direction forward.
Some important points were made during the passage of the legislation. In the past, consultations were about involvement of communities and participation of individuals in early consultation—those elements will be developed by the Government.
On how Parliament relates to the process, the 2006 act requires the Government to provide Parliament with 60 days during which to consider the contents of the national planning framework. The Minister for Parliamentary Business is a very reasonable individual, and I am sure that he will be able to look sympathetically on some of the questions on the involvement of committees. I am anxious to take forward the contents of the 2006 act in their entirety.
Patrick Harvie raised the issue of sustainable development. Sustainable development is adequately covered by the Government's purpose and the criteria that I mentioned in my statement. As I said in response to the question that Mr Scott asked, the Government must seriously consider the contents of the Sustainable Development Commission's recent report. We will do so and, obviously, we will take decisions that are consistent with establishing sustainable development. The Government's decisions will be set in that context.
I am not normally taken by the idea of describing the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth as a little Scotlander, but I will do so today in order to invite him to rise to the challenge of addressing an issue that perhaps he did not address in his statement.
It seems that the cabinet secretary has not taken into account the fact that the effects of the criteria that he has outlined will influence things that happen beyond Scotland's borders, and that the changes in what happens beyond Scotland's borders will come back and affect what happens here. I give as an example his commitment to the generation and distribution of clean energy. If he achieves his aims, the generation and distribution of clean energy may result in Scotland's hills being littered with a massively disproportionate number of the United Kingdom's wind turbines and pylons, while Scotland's new and inevitably constructed nuclear capacity is constructed south of the border.
Where do I start with that?
In the summer, I made a fascinating visit to the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney. Scotland is leading the world in marine energy technology, which is a fantastic achievement. We would be failing in our duty if we did not seize the opportunity to develop the connectivity opportunities that arise from that technology and the opportunity to generate power from it, transfer that power and translate it into an asset for our country. The Government wants to protect Scotland's natural and built environment, which is one of the principal reasons why I made it expressly clear in my statement that we will not be persuaded by the arguments for more nuclear power stations. We want to attach a premium to the quality of Scotland's natural environment. Our statement and approach amply demonstrate how we intend to do that.
I commend the previous Administration for developing the first national planning framework and welcome the new Administration's commitment to progressing the second framework.
It is essential that the criteria for identifying which projects will be included in the planning framework be rigorously applied—we have already debated that—because such a designation will take decision making away from local authorities, which should not be done lightly. It must be clearly demonstrated that projects are genuinely of national significance. Therefore, I welcome the assurances that Mr Swinney has given.
Reconciling strategic needs and local sensitivities is difficult. As many members have said, the greater involvement of people in the planning system at an early stage is the way to ensure that our communities trust the planning system. However, successful participation follows groundwork and capacity building. I noted the cabinet secretary's response to the questions that Des McNulty and Christine Grahame asked on good words about consultation, but will that groundwork and capacity building be properly resourced so that our citizens can successfully participate early in the planning process? I commend in particular the well established and respected work of Planning Aid for Scotland. The cabinet secretary might like to take that model forward.
I will certainly consider that point. I am keen to ensure that there are effective methods of local involvement.
During my visits around the country in the summer, I was struck by the techniques that organisations that operate in the voluntary sector use. Those techniques struck me as being particularly effective in drawing people together and helping people to reach agreements on how to progress sensitive issues, some of which related to planning matters. The voluntary sector can be more fully involved in that area.
I reassure Alison McInnes that the planning reforms are not designed to encroach in any way whatever on the role of local authorities. Indeed, I am reminded of the fact that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities gave a warm welcome to the contents of the planning reform agenda, which devolves more responsibilities to local authorities—a trend that I actively and enthusiastically support.
We have to recognise—it is implicitly recognised in the legislation—that some developments have to be defined as national developments. As I said in answer to Mary Mulligan, such definitions will be kept to the absolute minimum in order to ensure that we have the right decision-making power at local authority level.
If members keep their questions short, I will get everyone in.
I note the cabinet secretary's comments, including those on consensus. Although plenty of members now talk the talk on consensus, planning is a very good example of the previous Executive's record of walking the walk on consensus. I welcome the fact that, in building consensus, John Swinney has expressed support for the previous Executive's approach. By comparison, many in his party, including his business manager, wish to take a different approach.
The statement encourages us to recognise the power of effective planning in transforming our communities and of the critical role that participation by individuals and communities—not consultation, but participation—plays at an early stage in ensuring the right kind of strategic planning decisions. My questions are on resource issues, which I believe are critical to successful realisation of the aims that lie behind the national planning framework. First, will the cabinet secretary continue to consider capacity in the planning system? How do we make planning an attractive career? Are we looking actively at scholarships and incentives to encourage people to come into planning—a profession that gives individuals a powerful means of taking part in the transformation of communities?
Secondly, and importantly, will Mr Swinney acknowledge that real participation involves skilled facilitation at local level? Is he willing to support organisations such as Planning Aid for Scotland that have credible track records in facilitating such work? In the need to look for cuts across government spending, will he resist the temptation to cut funding to such organisations? Doing so may be seen as a soft option, but such skilled facilitators are critical to the delivery of an effective planning process in Scotland.
In an earlier response to Tavish Scott, I tried to be generous in what I said about Johann Lamont in order to encourage her. I am not sure that I succeeded.
Johann Lamont's first point was on capacity in planning. The Government's planners are actively promoting exciting opportunities to enable people to contribute to the development of the national planning framework. The framework gives an absolutely fantastic opportunity for people to take part in a process that will lead to the design of our country in 20 to 30 years' time—a picture of what it will look like. Exciting career opportunities are involved and our planners are encouraging the process. I will remain mindful of the matter in all the decisions that I take on the planning service.
Johann Lamont's second point was on the skill that is involved in encouraging participation. She is absolutely right that we must have the right type of facilitation if we are to ensure that people can make proper and effective input into the planning process. I agree entirely that, if we secure early participation, the planning process is made ever more robust at the point at which decisions come to be taken.
Do the cabinet secretary and Scottish ministers accept the problem of underfunding in local authority planning services? If so, what will he and ministers do about it?
Governments always have to wrestle with the question of resources. Predominantly, the issues that are involved relate to the effectiveness of local authority planning departments. A number of developments have been taken forward on issues such as e-planning and improvements in the efficiency of the planning process. Those developments will assist in improving the efficiency and smooth running of planning activities in different parts of Scotland. The area is one in which the Government will continue to take an active interest. We will give it our full support.