Planning Process (M74)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2788, in the name of Rosie Kane, on the planning process and the M74 northern extension. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that any proposal by the Scottish Executive to restrict public input into the planning process should be rejected; recognises that the planning process requires change but notes that any change should be in the interests of democracy and inclusion; believes that local knowledge is imperative when planning decisions are being made; notes the recommendation of the public inquiry reporter that the M74 project should not proceed, and thanks residents along the route and beyond for their continued interest and input on this issue.
I know that this type of debate is normally consensual and that we normally thank one another for bringing the debate to the Parliament. I hope that even members who support the construction of the M74 northern extension will, as the motion states, note the recommendations of the inquiry reporter and thank the residents along the route for their continued interest and input. We can surely agree on that. We all believe that locals should be active citizens. That is taught in schools and colleges and it is encouraged by the Parliament. Therefore, when citizens do just that and take the time to find out what is happening in the community, I trust that we can applaud their active citizenship, even when we do not agree with their conclusions.
I thank and pay tribute to JAM74—joint action against the M74—residents against the M74, Friends of the Earth Scotland, the Scottish Association for Public Transport, the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, which is my party, TRANSform Scotland, Govanhill community council, Cambuslang, Carmyle and Rutherglen residents against pollution, Tom Martin, Maria Mohan and countless other groups and individuals who have worked tirelessly over the years being active citizens. The task has not been easy for them; for residents in particular, it was often a struggle to get equal access to information, resources and expertise.
There was a great deal of input into the local public inquiry that took place over a period of months. Members should thank those who gave of their time and energy, no matter what they think of the resulting report. The issue has been rumbling around for decades and some in the chamber will say that, if we had simply got on with it, the world would be a better place. The opposite is true. We should be grateful for the gift of hindsight and thank all those who have taken part in slowing the construction down so that we might use that hindsight.
I remind the member that much the same arguments were used about linking the M8 and the M77. Does she not agree that the M77 is an absolutely magnificent route that reduces pollution, particularly in Glasgow?
I do not agree. With the M77, we were promised a better economy for the people along the route and less pollution. None of that has come to fruition, so I do not agree with Mr Gallie.
The public inquiry would never have taken place if it were not for the active citizens who stayed involved, met regularly and sometimes dragged themselves out weekly—some of them have disabilities and some of them had weans in tow—to exchange information and to work their way through plans. We in the chamber must congratulate all those people.
Perhaps the First Minister would congratulate them if he were here, given that when Cathie Craigie asked him last week
"how the Scottish Executive will ensure that the rights of communities are properly represented during the planning process",
he stated that his "twin objectives" were
"to create a more efficient and modern planning system that ensures that local authorities and Government deal with the needs of communities and applicants properly and efficiently"
and
"to ensure that individuals and communities have a better opportunity to influence the decisions of local authorities and Government at each stage of the planning process."—[Official Report, 12 May 2005; c 16826-27.]
In response to a question from Janis Hughes in November 2003 on the M74 northern extension, the First Minister prejudiced the outcome of the local public inquiry with his opinion when he said:
"I support the construction in question."
However, he would not allow the locals to express their opinion. We might have thought that he would have allowed them to, because, to his credit, he went on to say in response to a question from Patrick Harvie:
"In the public inquiry that is taking place and in other decisions that will be required to be taken over the coming period, it is important to take into account the impact on individuals in the area."
I for one could not agree more with the First Minister, which is weird. He continued:
"Doing so is important for those who would be affected by the construction of the new road."—[Official Report, 27 November 2003; c 3739-40.]
He was talking about the M74 northern extension.
If that is the case and if those were the beliefs of the First Minister in November 2003 and last week in this chamber, surely we have consensus in the chamber tonight. However, the lack of denial about recent leaks tells a different story and I fear that we are about to see a power grab that will remove the expertise of the community from the planning process. My concern is that the definition of modernisation in this case will mean the removal of citizens, community councils and non-governmental organisations from the process. The dismissal of the local public inquiry report indicates that the Scottish Executive is concerned that it has been too successful in promoting awareness, participation and democracy and now wants its ball back.
Those active citizens have got in the way of a dinosaur of a plan. They have worked hard to find out what they need to know. They have had their day in court and they have had the plan swept aside, but they have been ignored. We are in a political Jurassic park, in which the Executive is trying to give birth to a dangerous, ugly white elephant, but the communities are the ones who will live with the consequences of this monster. The public inquiry has been dumped on the hard shoulder while the M74 juggernaut drives over democracy, leaving communities choking in the exhaust fumes.
The mace on the Parliament's floor has inscribed on it four words. It mentions justice, but where is the environmental justice in the decision? It mentions integrity, but does that mean that we ignore such reports? It mentions compassion, but where is the compassion for those along the route who live with the legacy of toxic waste? Finally, there is democracy, but that should mean keeping the people as part of the process.
Tonight, I want to ask the minister and the Parliament some questions.
You have one minute.
I will not even need that.
Will communities and individuals have the right to challenge all developments now and in the future? Will they have the right to the same information, resources and access to experts as developers, local authorities and the Executive have? Will the modern planning system of the future offer equality of arms?
I hope that we can achieve consensus on the issue, but I suggest that that is unlikely, given Rosie Kane's speech this evening.
Rosie Kane starts from two false premises. First, she claims to speak against the M74 on behalf of community interests across Glasgow. However, her assumption is that those who shout loud enough about an issue are necessarily right. Secondly, she assumes that, if those who have a particular position on an issue can get people to an inquiry, their view should necessarily be validated by a reporter.
Even if that were the case, tonight's debate is on the principle of whether the Executive should accept a reporter's findings. In the case of the M74, the minister chose to reject the reporter's recommendation despite howls of outrage. However, on other issues, ministers have rejected the recommendation of a reporter who found in favour of a proposal. For example, when the recommendation to approve the Harris superquarry proposal was rejected by the relevant minister at the time, environmentalists and many others welcomed the ministerial intervention that they now condemn in the case of the M74. The reality of the debate is that judgments eventually need to be made between competing interests.
Among those competing interests are the long-term benefits of the M74 to Glasgow's economic potential over the next 40 or 50 years. As a representative who has argued for the completion of Glasgow's motorway network, I make no apology in highlighting its importance in tackling the issues of poverty, exclusion and inequality, which Rosie Kane and many other colleagues will surely agree are critical. The M74 is one of the key tools for doing that.
Will the member give way?
If I may make this point first, I will then concede and sit down to listen to Rosie Kane's contribution.
Essentially, the issue is about how we make cities competitive. Given Scotland's and Glasgow's location within Europe, and given the problems of economic development that the city has historically faced, it strikes me that to make Glasgow less competitive than the many other equivalent cities in Europe that are developing their motorway networks would be a major abdication of responsibility. I would like to hear Rosie Kane's response on that issue.
I asked the member to give way for a couple of reasons. First, he was elected to Glasgow City Council on a manifesto that opposed the construction of the M74 northern extension. Secondly, does he accept that Easterhouse, Pollok and Townhead have not benefited economically from the introduction of motorways? Does he think that those areas have done well as a result of the motorway?
If members pop along to junction 10 on the M8, they will see that Easterhouse now has a good health centre, a major new further education college facility and a major retail park, which has just been completed. Many people would have said that such facilities could never have been developed in that part of Glasgow, but those have all come about because of the connectivity that junction 10 of the M8 has provided.
In reality, those developments have been delivered because—I say this in a partisan fashion—folk have been elected who want to make connections between economic opportunity and infrastructure development. Since 1999, the Executive has made commitments on a whole range of issues to try to address the many concerns that Rosie Kane identified.
The analysis that Rosie Kane provided is wrong not only on grounds of economic competitiveness—on that issue, she clearly missed the point—but on the environmental issues. Why some of the reporter's factual findings did not end up in his conclusions is an issue that the reporter will need to square. In his report, he concedes that the M74 development would substantially reduce the impact of traffic and congestion on the immediately adjacent roads and streets that are being used at the moment—from Duke Street at the top end of the east of Glasgow right down to where Dalmarnock Road crosses into Rutherglen.
It strikes me that we are having a dishonest debate in which it is claimed that one side has the virtue of environmentalism, whereas the other side does not. In the light of all the points that I have made, it is legitimate for us to ask how we make the city more competitive, ensure that the impact of traffic on streets is diminished and, most important, create jobs and employment for Glaswegians, in particular. Once it has been fully developed, the M74 can deliver those benefits.
I will pass on the other issues that are being debated this evening. I wanted to come to the chamber as the elected member for an area that is affected by the M74 to put the case for its extension. Most of the public have accepted that it is worth while and they will certainly see the benefits of it.
I am grateful to Rosie Kane for allowing Parliament to debate this matter. It is a shame that the debate is not many times longer, because that would allow the paucity of the SSP's arguments to be exposed fully.
The Scottish National Party has debated the M74 issue twice. On each occasion, it concluded by a huge majority that the economic and social case for the project is overwhelming. First, the Kingston bridge is the most congested part of Scotland's traffic system. Secondly, the completion of the link will, in effect, provide a ring road round Glasgow. Thirdly, it will allow traffic to be taken from the city-centre roads. We do not often hear the argument that that in itself contributes to road safety. There has been a reduction in the number of fatal road accidents in Glasgow from 141 in 1976, before the motorways were built, to 13 in 2003. There is less traffic in the city centre today than there was in 1961, despite the fact that there has been a threefold growth in traffic in Glasgow as a whole. On Saturday, I met a Glasgow cop who said that he is looking forward to not having to take bits of bodies off the roads. I hope that when the Greens reply to my speech, they will recognise the safety argument.
Does Fergus Ewing agree that the M74 extension would lead to a massive environmental improvement, by reducing the noxious gases that are emitted by slow-moving traffic?
It falls to Phil Gallie and me to put the environmental case. It is also rarely mentioned that the cost of rectifying the polluted land that is part of the project is estimated at £50 million. If the land is not to be part of the missing link in the motorway, who will pay that sum? I hear no answer, because there is none. No one will pay the £50 million and the land will remain polluted for all time, unused and unusable.
A leading businessman from my part of the world told me recently that he intended to set up a head office in the central belt of Scotland, in order to expand his Highland business south. It took him less than one minute to dismiss the west of Scotland from his plans, because of the time that his staff would have to spend on the M8 and the Kingston bridge sitting in their cars, doing nothing, getting paid and polluting the environment. I want businesses to come to Glasgow, not to be driven away from it.
Will the member give way?
No.
The SNP wants to turn its fire on the Scottish Executive, which promised that the project would begin long ago. In October 2001, it issued a press release that stated, "M74 extension to begin". Another press release, from May 2002, stated:
"Work on M74 missing link to start next month".
Perhaps I missed the start of that work.
Of course, the planning inquiry was a sham, because the Executive had spent £41 million on buying up land and factories that could be used only as part of the motorway. What on earth was it to do with that land if it did not go ahead? The Executive press releases announcing the inquiry never said that its purpose was to determine whether the project should go ahead; the intention was only to allow views to be heard. Frankly, that was typical Labour spin.
The problem that we now face is that if the legal action that is threatened by the Trots and the Greens succeeds in delaying the project, the effect will be—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Mr Ewing, Mr Harvie has a point of order.
I hope that I will get extra time.
I merely want it noted for the record that legal action is not being threatened and will not be pursued by the Scottish Socialist Party or the Scottish Green Party.
That sounded like an intervention; it was certainly not a point of order.
The legal action that is threatened might prevent the M74 project from going ahead in accordance with the timetable. There is no plan B; if the project does not go ahead, the workers in the companies that would have got the work will have no work to fill the gap. Skilled Scottish workers might be handed their P45s as a result of the legal action that is threatened by the SSP and the incompetence of the Greens.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with Rosie Kane that we should be grateful to the people who participated in the inquiry. I am sorry that people are disappointed but, inevitably, disappointment is sometimes a consequence of the democratic process.
Let us be clear: the arguments for proceeding with the M74 link are compelling on economic, environmental and safety grounds. For many years, Glasgow and the west of Scotland have been bedevilled by the fact that the motorway is incomplete. The situation has rendered businesses uncompetitive. We should acknowledge that a major institutional change in the way in which businesses operate has taken place in the 30 or 40 years since the construction of the motorway system in Glasgow began. There is much more business with the south-east and with Europe, and the motorway link will be a vital component in speedy and cheap communications.
I accept that some people will be adversely affected by the project, but surely the question must be what is most beneficial to the largest number of people. It is regrettable that some people will lose out. However, would the disruption and minor economic consequences that certain people suffered be more regrettable than the rendering uncompetitive of businesses in west-central Scotland and the accompanying dramatic loss of jobs and future business opportunities, which would undoubtedly be the effect if the project were cancelled?
The member mentioned the job losses that would undoubtedly flow from the cancellation of the project. Of the various figures for the number of jobs that depend on the project that have been floated by the Scottish Executive, Glasgow City Council, the Confederation of British Industry and others, which figure does the member accept? The lowest estimate is 1,200 and the highest is 66,000. Does the member think that any of the figures bears any relationship to reality?
It is obvious that there are dramatic disparities in the figures that have been quoted and Patrick Harvie is perfectly correct to point that out. I will not quantify the figure, but I operated in the real world for many years and businesses told me time and again that the lack of a proper motorway project was one of the biggest handicaps that they faced when they wanted to expand, develop and indeed survive. The economic arguments are so obvious that I am surprised that Patrick Harvie cannot see them.
However, I part company with advocates of the project on one matter. I am concerned that the absence of direct links to and from the Kingston bridge will cause serious problems of congestion and road safety in Glasgow as well as serious difficulties for residents of Plantation and Tradeston. We must examine that issue, because it would be very unfortunate if a project that could do so much good caused all sorts of difficulties for businesses and private residents south of the River Clyde. Given the size of the project, it would not cost that much extra to allow for direct access on and off the Kingston bridge—indeed, I have heard estimates of £12 million. I wrote to the Minister for Transport on the matter some time ago, but he is unable to accept those arguments. He should now re-examine the issue and make much more stringent inquiries than he has made to date. However, as I have said, the argument for proceeding with the project is simply unanswerable. It must go ahead.
I certainly congratulate Rosie Kane on securing the debate, but I am a little disappointed by the way in which it has gone so far. I wanted to talk about the M74 in the context of the planning process, partly because that is what the motion talks about and partly because the Minister for Communities is waiting to respond to the debate and he probably has more to say about the planning process than he has about the M74.
Given that the M74 has been raised so prominently, I will turn my speech round and start by addressing those issues. I should point out that, in doing so, I do not want to open up any wider debate. After all, I have had this argument before and will have it again, and I do not expect to convince many members on the Labour and SNP benches that they should move away from road building.
I want first to respond to two points, the first of which was raised by Frank McAveety. He is now notable by his absence, and I do hope that he reads the Official Report of the debate. I do not argue—and never have argued—that Scottish Executive ministers do not have the power to make a decision on a planning issue after a public local inquiry. However, I strongly argue that the PLI report shows clearly and comprehensively why this decision is wrong.
Secondly, I am sure that Fergus Ewing sincerely believes the many emotive arguments that he made. However, whatever the amount of road infrastructure in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, congestion, air pollution, CO2 emissions, climate change and road safety levels are the results of road traffic growth alone. Year after year, there is more road traffic in Glasgow. According to the Executive's projections, there will be a 40 per cent increase in road traffic in Glasgow. That is the driver behind the very serious problems that Mr Ewing identified.
Will the member give way?
I will happily extend to Fergus Ewing the courtesy that he did not extend to me.
I am grateful to the member for giving way. Will the Greens tell us how many roads there should be? Should there be any new roads or motorways anywhere? Are they against the internal combustion engine and, if so, does their opposition also apply to public transport such as buses?
I will gladly celebrate on the day that the infernal combustion engine is no longer a necessary part of our lives. However, we are not designing a society or a city from scratch. We have what we have, and the question is whether it is better to spend £500 million on an urban motorway project, with all the associated problems that the PLI report has highlighted, or on crossrail schemes and traffic reduction. Those are the issues that we want to focus on.
I will move on to talk about how this matter was dealt with by the planning process. I was an objector to the M74 before I was elected as an MSP—indeed, I objected to the project before I was even a candidate for election. After the 2003 election, I gave evidence to the public local inquiry. If people are interested, they can read my precognition on my website. The reporter endorsed some, but not all, of my arguments and certainly endorsed the range of arguments that witnesses raised against the road.
Then there was nothing. Despite the Executive's target to publish 80 per cent of PLI reports within two months and the rest within three months, there was no response for months and months. Finally, I happened to be in my office in Holyrood—by now I was an MSP—when a colleague told me that Nicol Stephen was standing in front of a camera, telling the BBC his decision. He did not tell me as a representative, as a witness to the inquiry or as an objector to the orders; he told the BBC first.
It is clear that people who engage with the planning system are not given the respect that they are due as active citizens. Reforms to the planning system have to rectify that—and I hope that the minister hears. Yes, we need the system to be effective, to be faster and to endorse and facilitate sustainable development, but it must also be fair. If it is going to involve people, they have to be trusted. That trust has been denied them in the past. In effect, they have repeatedly been told at the end of the day that they are not valid participants and that they cannot appeal against bad planning decisions, even though developers can. Unless people know that they can get involved on an equal footing, they will never engage and—even though we can talk about it all we want—consultation will not materialise. My challenge to the minister and his colleagues is to rectify that in their reform of the planning system.
I should point out to Mr Harvie that I was aware that Frank McAveety was leaving and that he had apologised for that.
It is good that we are debating this issue and that a lot of people took part in the public inquiry, agitating and making their views known. However, people have to accept that they will not always win. Many people support football teams that do their best but do not win every Saturday.
I want to deal with two aspects: first, the merits of the argument and, secondly, the planning issues. This was a difficult decision for a minister. The issue is not black and white. Both sides of the argument are carefully balanced and, in the end, the minister came down on one side. There are economic and social arguments in favour of promoting economic activity and prosperity in and around Glasgow; but there are also perfectly valid environmental arguments in favour of the minister's decision.
The motorway will reduce congestion on existing streets. It will reduce delays—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I would prefer to get on if I may.
The motorway will make life better for motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and local residents. It is much better for traffic to go on what is in effect a bypass than for it to trundle through ordinary residential and shopping streets. The motorway will also improve public transport, which will not be held up so much by cars in ordinary streets. It will greatly reduce the pressure on the M8 and the Kingston bridge. There are therefore many ways in which, on environmental grounds, the decision is perfectly respectable. The idea that it is all very wicked does not stand up to scrutiny.
As I understand it, the Executive has two main aims. One is to put a lot of investment into public transport and the other is to complete Scotland's main road network, of which the M74 extension is clearly a major part. By definition, a network is joined up. There is no point in having a lot of wee bits of string that do not join up, which is what we have at the moment. Only a very few additions have to be made to give us a complete road network. That is a high priority, along with public transport.
I turn now to planning. If we go back a long time, we can see that this issue was not well handled. There never seemed to be a clear strategic decision. A two-stage process is required. First, the Executive must make a strategic decision, answering the question, "Do we want this road or not?" Once it has argued its case and decided that it wants the road, people must have the chance to argue and object and so on.
After that strategic stage must come the second stage, when it is decided exactly where the road will go. At that point, there can be local inquiries into the details. Again, people must be able to object and make their views known.
We need a system that has greater community involvement in the planning process—both in the development of plans and in the early stages of planning applications. There must be much more front-loading of community involvement. There must also be a limited appeals system—limited both for developers and the local community.
One thing that we must do—and it is very difficult—is to find out the genuine views of the local community and not just the views of the people who shout the loudest and most frequently. Like most clichés, the cliché about the silent majority is true. We have to find ways of discovering what the silent majority of people actually want. Even they may not be able to get what they want, because there may be very good reasons why what they want cannot happen, but we must involve the whole community in the planning process.
I hope that we can learn from this issue and do things better in the forthcoming bill on planning.
I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate, as there are still a number of members who wish to take part.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.06 pm.—[Carolyn Leckie.]
Motion agreed to.
Along with many, if not all, other members of the Parliament, I welcome the Executive's commitment to modernising the planning system, which is long overdue, and I look forward to the publication of the planning bill.
Like Patrick Harvie, I would have liked to be discussing planning with the minister in tonight's debate, but I think that, with all due respect, Mr Harvie was being a trifle naive in thinking that that is what we would actually be talking about. Although the motion purports to be about planning, it is clear that it is just another attempt by the Scottish Socialist Party to grandstand on the issue of the M74 northern extension. As Fergus Ewing said, the motion demonstrates the paucity of the SSP's arguments. It amazes me that the SSP will not accept that the road is necessary for so many reasons, some of which we have already heard about.
Will the member give way?
We have heard what Rosie Kane had to say. She had a perfect opportunity to express her point of view. It is my turn now.
The benefits of the M74 northern extension will be far-reaching and include those of encouraging regeneration, providing employment, capping contaminated land and improving road safety. Those benefits are especially important to me this week, in light of Hoover's bitterly disappointing announcement that it will enter into consultation on the future of the 88 remaining manufacturing workers in Cambuslang. If those jobs are not retained in Cambuslang, it is vital that we do everything that we can to encourage regeneration and bring jobs to the area.
That point is reinforced by the long list of organisations that support the M74, which include the four largest political parties in the Parliament, the councils of South Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Renfrewshire, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Airports Ltd. In my opinion, the Executive was completely correct in its judgment that the reporter did not give enough weight to the many positive aspects of the M74 extension.
Much has been made of the number of objections to the scheme that were raised during the public local inquiry, but it is perhaps the case that such inquiries tend to draw objectors to a proposal to a greater extent than they draw supporters. The Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland states:
"it is doubtful if the promoters of the scheme made use of the strategic planning witnesses who might have been called had the principle of the scheme not been taken for granted somewhat".
Opponents of the M74 would do well not to overemphasise the scale of opposition to the road, especially when it has such widespread support and will bring major benefits to the whole of Scotland. Although those benefits will be felt particularly in west central Scotland, they will not be confined to the Glasgow area, which most of tonight's speakers have mentioned. I have highlighted many of those benefits on previous occasions in the Parliament but, unlike the SSP, I do not intend to go over old ground.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the construction of the road will provide significant economic benefits. As Scotland's economy grows, extra demand will inevitably be placed on our roads. The west of Scotland is responsible for more than half of Scotland's gross output, so we must act to improve our transport links if we are to remain competitive and drive forward our economy.
The scheme will bring huge environmental benefits for my constituents and those of many other members, as Frank McAveety pointed out. The sheer volume of traffic on Rutherglen Main Street, which, along with streets in residential areas, heavy goods vehicles use to make their way to the south side of Glasgow and the city centre once they have exited the M74, is causing significant environmental problems locally. The construction of the extension to the M74 will result in the capping of many toxic waste sites throughout the area, which is also good news.
I firmly believe that a review of Scotland's planning laws is long overdue, but so is the completion of the M74. The sooner we build the M74 northern extension, the better. I wish the SSP would wake up and realise that.
I am grateful to Rosie Kane for allowing us the opportunity for the debate this evening. Unlike other members, I do not propose to spend any time on the M74—on which the decision has been made—when we have the opportunity to discuss much more important matters, such as local decision making in the planning process and how we can enhance local democracy and inclusion.
Let me start by making a point about local planning that is often overlooked, which is that it is local and it is democratic. Unlike many public services—for example, nearly all decisions that are taken in respect of delivery of health services—most key decisions in planning are taken by locally elected and locally accountable people. For almost a decade, I was a member of a local authority planning committee. In that time, I took part in the public meetings and processes that were part of the formulation of local plans. Local plans are prepared and decisions are made by locally elected and locally accountable people who are elected by their communities for those purposes. Councils publicise and consult extensively on their local plans and structure plans and members of the wider public have substantial opportunities to take a direct part in those processes. In development control, which is where some 90 per cent of local authority planning work is focused, virtually all decision making is done locally by local people—the exceptions occur in areas where the Executive steps in. Decisions are based on the contents of local plans and structure plans, which are themselves the outcome of local consultation and decision making.
The local authority on which I served—as I said, for almost a decade—was used at that stage to consulting on key local planning applications, to allowing objectors and supporters to speak to councillors in meetings and to holding local meetings in the affected communities, which was, I think, representative of all local authorities at the time. From time to time, we would sit in town and village halls, facing hostile members of the public who did not approve of the planning application in question. We would listen patiently to all the arguments and we would give detailed, courteous and sustainable answers to all the objections that were made and explain the conditions that were attached to consents, why rejected applications were rejected or why the plans that were passed were passed.
When people say that the planning process needs to be levelled out and that a level playing field needs to be created, they should recognise that the role of the local authority is to protect the public interest. Local authorities exist to make decisions in the light of the opinions of the people who elect them and to whom they are accountable.
I am sure that the planning authority on which Mr Tosh served performed its functions with great courtesy and respect to the community that it served. However, does he recognise that the new code of conduct raises serious problems for councillors today who feel that they are unable to represent the views of their constituents? Citizens in a ward where a planning application is being considered are unable to approach their local councillor or to have them represent their views at the planning committee.
That was never the proper role of councillors: they were there to make decisions based on objective evidence. There is no reason why local councillors cannot hear objections or representations from their communities. However, local councillors are expected not to make definitive decisions on planning applications until they have heard all the evidence. That is common sense; it does not get in the way of the local democratic process.
There are ways in which the democracy of our planning process can, and must, be improved. Surely improvement is all about more effectively building people into the planning process and about speeding up that process. It is important that we focus the Executive's mind on the imperative requirement that it deliver its proposed planning bill, and that we ensure that, whatever role it creates for enhanced local decision making and public participation, the bill is put at the beginning of the process, at the consultation and participation stage.
It has been suggested that the Executive is minded to create a third-party right of appeal, for example. If it does so, it must be careful to build in a right of appeal that is qualified and manageable and that can be coped with at local authority and Executive levels. Let us forget about the M74, which is done and dusted. The planning decision has been made and we have many more important issues and processes to consider in the months and years ahead.
I fear that Murray Tosh may live to regret that statement. The M74 is definitely not done and dusted. I am sure that local communities will make that clear.
Like Patrick Harvie, I will concentrate on planning. It is worth noting that the M74 is not mentioned in the motion until 56 words in. It would have been helpful if some members had addressed the majority of their speeches to those 56 words instead of just ignoring them.
I fear that far from improving inclusion in the planning process, we are about to repeat the serious mistakes that have been made in health board consultations. In such consultations, input at the beginning is assured, but there is no means of ensuring that all the information—such as transcripts and submissions—is shared, and there is no opportunity to question interpretation of evidence, judgments or outcomes. I would like the minister to reassure me that that will not be the case with all developments that communities face; if it is, communities will have a right to speak and to submit their views but they will have absolutely no right to be listened to.
I want to address Frank McAveety's points. It is a shame that he is not here. He said that the debate is based on a false premise and that people think that if they shout loud enough they will get their own way. That seems to be Frank's argument for dismissing any form of consultation. He seems to be saying, "Don't listen to the people who submit their views to the consultation. Just ignore them." Perhaps that is an honest position, but if he truly believes that every person in an affected community should be consulted, I am sure that he will support a call for a referendum on the M74. Then we would have the view of the whole community, and we would have followed his argument. However, I suspect that he would not support that. He also talked about economic benefit, but failed to mention that when the Glasgow Development Agency carried out a survey, all the companies along the route stated that they would set up anyway. His argument was, therefore, wrong.
It is well known that building a motorway does not reduce the number of cars on the road or the amount of pollution, but increases them. Why do we not talk about spending the £500 million to £1 billion on better public transport links, such as buses and rail? People in the area around the motorway would then be able to get to their work and they would not need a motorway. Indeed, the people who work in Easterhouse and all the working-class areas along the route are unlikely to be able to afford cars in the first place. They need buses and trains.
It is interesting that Fergus Ewing was the SNP's speaker in this debate, and that no Glasgow SNP MSP spoke, but maybe that should not be a surprise, since he promotes the right-wing roadmongering philosophy. Perhaps the Glasgow SNP MSPs did not feel able to promote that view. He spoke about road deaths, but of course he ignored the increase in the incidence of asthma and other pollution-related health problems that will result if the M74 extension goes ahead—and all for £100 million to £200 million per mile. He talked about the toxic waste that would not be removed if the motorway was not built, but he obviously does not know the facts, because there is no plan to remove the waste. However, there is a plan to put concrete over it and to leave it there indefinitely, until it seeps up through the concrete. Fergus Ewing is wrong again. He also resorted to name calling, as usual, when he referred to "Trots". I am not sure whether Fergus Ewing knows what he means by that. If he means people who opposed the bureaucratic and undemocratic regime of the Soviet Union, I am guilty as charged, unlike half the people on the Labour benches in the past and, no doubt, some of Fergus Ewing's own SNP members.
The truth is that SNP members cannot see a bandwagon rolling away from them without their jumping on it with no credibility whatever. Apparently, the Lib Dems think that they have environmental credentials; unfortunately, Donald Gorrie was left to put that position, spinning on a pinhead—so much for the Lib Dems' environmental credentials.
I reiterate the questions that Rosie Kane posed to the minister. Will he address the issues of democracy, accountability and the imbalance of power in the planning process? Will communities have equal arms in the planning process? Does the minister believe that citizens—the majority—should have a greater say than have developers, who are an elite minority? Has he already ruled out a third-party right of appeal and, if so, what is the rationale for doing so?
It is fair to say that, while I sometimes go on a little too long, I am not known as a stickler for procedures; indeed, I cannot remember the last time that I raised a point of order. However, the powers that be in the parliamentary authorities should reflect on the motion, as it deals with two distinct topics: reform of the planning system; and the merits or demerits of the M74 extension. Further, it would be impossible to conclude that the motion meets the criterion of providing an opportunity for a cross-party debate. As my colleague Janis Hughes said, all four main political parties are on one side of the debate and others are on the other side. It would be helpful if we reflected on whether today's motion meets that criterion.
It would have been better if the member had made a point of order, because we could have responded to it. Wendy Alexander's comments show the dismissive attitude of the big parties to the small parties. There is cross-party support for the motion from the Scottish Socialist Party, the Green party and the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party, but it is obvious that Wendy Alexander does not see that as cross-party support.
As I said, the issue is for the parliamentary authorities. I will leave it at that, because I am not a stickler for procedures.
I turn to the two matters at hand: the M74 extension and the planning issue. In my remaining minute or so, I will try to dispose of both of them.
It is proper and unarguable that we should pause and think before we build more roads, but the M74 extension is not any old road; it is a road that will relieve the worst and most significant congestion black spot in the entire country, not the fourth or fifth-worst black spot. The work that was done on the road's economic benefits showed that, in terms of road safety and reduced travel time, the road would bring between five and nine times more benefit. That is the reason why the road is much needed.
Will the member at least recognise and note that the inquiry reporter found that, although there would be some relief of congestion, it would be ephemeral?
I have read the inquiry report.
I turn to the suggested alternatives for dealing with the congestion. Carolyn Leckie suggested that people could get on buses and on to rail, but I am not sure how we can put the output of Chivas Brothers, Rolls-Royce or Hewlett-Packard on to a bus, although I concede that it is possible to put it on to a train. If we wanted to do that, Mossend would be the multimodal terminal at which to do so. However, we need the M74 extension to get the entirety of the industrial output of Cunninghame North, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire to Mossend to allow us to pursue the multimodal solution that is rightly talked about.
Does the member accept that we have busy junctions because we have too many motorways and, as a result, increased traffic? Does she accept that, although the motorway runs beside a railway line for much of its journey, there has never been a multimodal study into the alternatives?
It is sometimes appropriate to use trains, but it is absolutely clear from talking to Chivas, Rolls-Royce and Hewlett-Packard that they do not want private rail lines to their factories; they want a fast route to market and to be able to choose whether to go by road or rail. The critical issue is that, given their desire to get to the south of England, we should not demand that they go through the entirety of the north side of Glasgow, which is what makes the Kingston bridge the sort of blockage that it is at present.
As I am in my final minute, I will come to the second issue, which is the planning system. We all know that there is huge frustration about planning. However, there is a risk that we in this chamber might assume that the source of that frustration with the system is anger with the decisions taken rather than frustration at the delays that exist in the system, which we need to sort out.
One of the reasons why some of us have less sympathy than others with the idea of a third-party right of appeal is that, rather than reforming the system to deal with the delay, it would introduce more procedures into a system that is already beyond breaking point.
Ms Alexander, you must finish now.
Let me just make something clear to Patrick Harvie. He suggested that we have a developer-friendly system. However, it is hard to suggest that the system is overly friendly to developers when, on the one measure of that that we have, only two out of the 33 planning authorities meet the target that they have been given to process large applications within four months. The frustration with the planning system arises as the result of delay and we should not clutter up the system further.
I congratulate Rosie Kane on securing this debate on the reform of our land-use planning system. I share her desire to ensure that there is greater inclusion of local people in planning decisions. That is why the Scottish Executive will actively address inclusion in its reform proposals. I am happy to acknowledge the active citizenship of Rosie Kane and others in relation to the M74. However, I am not here to debate the merits or otherwise of that proposal. For one thing, I am not the Minister for Transport, and for another, the matter is currently the subject of a challenge in the courts.
In our partnership agreement, the Executive said that we would improve the planning system and that is exactly what we will do. There are two main themes to the improvements that we will make. We will create a more efficient planning system that will deliver the right development where and when it is needed. Sustainable growth will be at the heart of that. It is equally important that we will ensure that local people and communities have better opportunities to participate in the planning of their areas and in the decisions that affect them. I can therefore reassure Rosie Kane that one of the major thrusts of our reform package will be to ensure that local people are properly engaged, are clear about the future direction of development in their areas and are able to contribute, confident that their voices will be heard.
It is no secret that we intend to ensure that the role of the national planning framework is continued and enhanced. The "National Planning Framework for Scotland" document has already received considerable acclaim and support from all interests in the planning system. There have been calls from many sides to give the framework greater status, not least from those representing environmental interests. We agree that there are decisions, essential to Scotland's future, that need to be taken at the strategic, national level—as Donald Gorrie suggested—and believe that the national planning framework is a key vehicle for setting out those decisions. In particular, the national planning framework will need to be clear on the spatial implications of other key strategic policies, such as transport, water and sewerage, waste and regeneration policies. We will need to map out how we will meet our obligations under European environmental law—in relation to waste disposal or wastewater treatment, for example—and ensure that those obligations are properly accounted for in the planning system.
I understand what the minister is saying, but can he clarify whether he sees this as being in any way contrary to the objective of speeding up the planning process at a local level? Is it unacceptable that the M74s of the future will emerge through a plan-led process or are they going to be fed in at a national level, bypassing the local planning process?
I will speak about the local planning process later, but the key message to get across is that decisions should be made at the most appropriate level. There is absolutely no doubt that planning authorities are and will remain at the core of our planning system and are best placed to make decisions on local matters.
The national planning framework will undergo strategic environmental assessment, which involves an environmental report that must be subject to full public consultation and the issuing of a statement about how environmental considerations have been taken into account. As a result, the key national strategic planning document will be subject to a thorough public examination of the potential environmental impacts. There can, therefore, be no question of removing the public right to influence Scotland's future development. It is quite the opposite, in fact. I repeat the point I made at question time last week that our planning reforms contain no proposals to change the procedures on nuclear power stations.
It is no secret that our reforms will seek to put development planning at the heart of decision making. That is a crucial area of work in which we need to ensure that local people are properly engaged, which they are not at present. In future, plans will involve local people more effectively, continue to protect the environment—which they will do more effectively—and determine how applications are decided.
To be able to participate fully, local people should have the right to be informed at an early stage that preparation of a new plan is beginning. They should have the right to be able to influence that plan, which will set out proposals for how their local area will develop. I noted what Carolyn Leckie said about influence; local people do not have a great deal of influence now, but we certainly intend that they should have more. They should have the right to expect that decisions on individual applications will be taken in accordance with the plan unless there are overriding reasons to decide otherwise and they should expect a greater degree of scrutiny of decisions in which that does not happen. There are many other ways of involving people in individual planning applications that will be described in the white paper. Crucially, that involvement will be at an early stage, which is precisely what Donald Gorrie wished.
Does the minister mean by that statement that, in the proposed planning bill, the Executive will propose that there should be no third-party right of appeal in circumstances in which the proposed consent accords with the approved local plan?
Carolyn Leckie raised the third-party right of appeal. I was going to refer to it later, but as it has been raised now, we might as well discuss it. Some people think that introducing a third-party right of appeal would be the most effective way to ensure local participation, but others disagree, favouring earlier and effective involvement with influence to increase the ways in which local people can have a proper say in the system. There is a hard choice to be made, as I said at question time last week. We all want more effective involvement in the system, but the question is what the most effective way of doing that is, being mindful of other consequences of a third-party right of appeal, which Wendy Alexander mentioned. One thing that is common to most arguments is the idea that we need to restore confidence in the planning system and ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest.
Will the minister give way?
I will finish what I was saying about development plans and then I will take an intervention if I am allowed to, although I am probably overrunning my time.
It is crucial to a new, more effective and inclusive planning system that we ensure that the process of making development plans is efficient, predictable and transparent, which is not the case at present. The local plans that the majority of councils have adopted are more than five years old and around a quarter of them are more than 15 years old. That is why a main aim of our reforms will be to reinforce the centrality of up-to-date and relevant development plans. That will be an essential part of ensuring that there are better opportunities for local people to influence the decision-making process. As I said to Murray Tosh, the renewed emphasis on local plans will reinforce the role of planning authorities at the core of the planning system. Development plans will also be subject to strategic environmental assessment, so there will be better opportunities not only for local people in general to have an influence at that crucial stage, but for environmental interests to have such an influence.
On a point of planning procedure, will the minister state whether it is legitimate for a public local inquiry to proceed after the Scottish Executive has purchased land voluntarily? If so, was the inquiry on the M74 extension made aware in the course of its work that plots were being acquired voluntarily? That question is not affected by any litigation, which relates to the merits of the argument. It is an important point, because The Herald and other newspapers argued that there is an element of sham if land is purchased in advance of, and pre-empting the outcome of, such an inquiry.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I really do not think that members' business debates are the appropriate occasion for fishing opportunities regarding future policy announcements by the Executive. I would ask you to reflect on that, and I would be grateful for your views.
It is entirely up to the minister how he responds, but I take the member's point.
I think that I have dealt with the fishing for future policy announcements—I think that that was fishing for something else. The member can try fishing with Nicol Stephen if he likes, but I suspect that the matter is as sub judice for him as it is for me.
The planning white paper will be published in the near future. Until then, I can only urge people to be patient and to keep an open mind. When the time comes, it will be necessary to examine the full range of improvements that we will make for the long-term benefit of all Scotland's people. The programme will aim to improve the opportunities for local people to participate in the process and to make the system fairer, more efficient and more suited to a dynamic, growing Scotland, while at the same time placing more value on Scotland's heritage and environment.
Meeting closed at 18:06.