Plenary, 25 Feb 2009

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Official Report 434KB pdf

---

Business Motion

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S3M-3520, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business—

Wednesday 4 March 2009

2.30 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill

followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Policing and Crime Bill - UK Legislation

followed by Business Motion

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members' Business

Thursday 5 March 2009

9.15 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Scottish Labour Party Business

11.40 am General Question Time

12 noon First Minister's Question Time

2.15 pm Themed Question Time

Finance and Sustainable Growth

2.55 pm Local Government and Communities Committee Debate: National Planning Framework 2

followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill - UK Legislation

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members' Business

Wednesday 11 March 2009

2.30 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill

followed by Business Motion

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members' Business

Thursday 12 March 2009

9.15 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Scottish Government Business

11.40 am General Question Time

12 noon First Minister's Question Time

2.15 pm Themed Question Time

Europe, External Affairs and Culture;

Education and Lifelong Learning

2.55 pm Stage 3 Proceedings: Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members' Business—[Michael McMahon.]

Patrick Harvie has indicated that he wishes to speak against the motion. Mr Harvie, you have up to five minutes.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, but I do not think that I will need them all. I welcome the proposal to make time available next week for a committee debate on the Local Government and Communities Committee's report on national planning framework 2 and I welcome the work that three committees have done to contribute to the scrutiny of the framework.

It is important that we have the chance to debate the report, but I want to raise a wider question about the parliamentary process for considering the national planning framework before we agree to the committee debate taking place. I want to ask whether and how the Parliamentary Bureau considered that in bringing the business motion to the Parliament.

The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 places this responsibility on ministers:

"In preparing or revising the framework, Scottish Ministers are to have regard to … any resolution … of … the Scottish Parliament".

During the Communities Committee's scrutiny of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, there was a lot of debate about the extent to which ministers should be bound by Parliament's view. I might have wished to go further than this, but the whole committee agreed with the recommendation in paragraph 271 of its stage 1 report on the bill, which called on the Executive

"to ensure that the draft National Planning Framework is the subject of a debate in the Parliament on a substantive motion to allow a full exchange of views on its contents."

The Government at the time disagreed with that recommendation perhaps because it did not accept my argument that, particularly in a period of minority Administration—should one ever arise—Parliament's word on the document, which has a substantial impact on communities throughout Scotland, should be final. It is even possible that the ministers of the day have had time to reflect on and reconsider that view.

These issues will of course be explored in more depth during the debate on the Local Government and Communities Committee's report. However, before we vote on the business motion, I would like clarification of whether we will have a further opportunity to consider a substantive motion, in Government time, on the contents of national planning framework 2 and confirmation that NPF 2 will not be adopted in a final form before we have that opportunity.

Mr Harvie is of course entitled to raise these matters but, on 25 November—prior to the NPF 2 document being laid in December—the Parliamentary Bureau agreed how the Parliament would scrutinise the document. It was agreed that the Parliamentary Bureau would set aside time in the business programme for a debate on the lead committee's report within the required timescale and that the lead committee's report and the Official Report of the debate would form the Parliament's response to Scottish ministers. As convener of one of the committees that contributed to the lead committee's report, Mr Harvie is aware of the process that was agreed, of which the committee debate next week is part. Yesterday, Mr Harvie requested a Government debate on NPF 2, and he repeated that request today. I have agreed to raise the matter with the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the cabinet secretary.

The question is, that motion S3M-3520, in the name of Bruce Crawford, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.