Chamber
Plenary, 03 Feb 2000
03 Feb 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Sustainable Development
I thought at times during Kenny MacAskill's speech that I had strayed into time for reflection or thought for the day. In his generally consensual and constructive mode, he says much with which I agree; we do not intend to vote against either Kenny's amendment or the motion. The tone of self-congratulation in the motion jarred a little, but the principal thrust of our amendment, which, the minister will note, recycles her words substantially, is to strike a note on planning and development.
There was much excitement before the establishment of this Parliament about what it might mean for planning. Planning professionals and organisations had great expectations. I do not suggest that those expectations cannot be fulfilled, but I point out that we have not yet had a debate on planning—we have not had an opportunity to discuss whether and to what extent the Executive intends to change the approach to planning. Planning was mentioned only briefly in the minister's speech today, and I hope that she will soon communicate the general thrust of the decisions that she will make in the current round of planning decisions.
We can all share a belief in the concept of sustainability. As the minister said, that concept was first publicised by the Brundtland report, was built into the Rio declaration in 1992 and has been a recurring theme of international gatherings and agreements since then. Since the early 1990s, our planning guidelines and advice notices have been systematically amended to take into account the essential mission of sustainability.
We do not think that there is any conflict between economic development and sustainability. Sustainability is a measurement by which economic development proposals might be judged, shaped or moulded. We are concerned that, in her approach to new planning policy, the minister should continue to reflect on the need to make land available for essential purposes. One of the successes of planning in the past decade and more has been the extent to which it has been possible to recycle brownfield land. We all share that objective, but there are occasions when recycled, brownfield sites cannot be found—for example for town-centre retailing, house building or economic development. It is important that we continue to have a commitment when necessary to use greenfield sites, taking sustainability as the criterion to select the sites. It is also important that we measure and mitigate the environmental disadvantages and establish controls and conditions that balance development with sustainability.
Even in an economy that is considerably less heated than that of the south-east of the United Kingdom, there is urban cramming in many towns and cities in Scotland and tremendous pressure for development on every available scrap of land. We hear of land exchanging at prices that most of us find unbelievable—I have heard, anecdotally, of a site in Edinburgh selling for £6 million per acre. That is a serious distortion in our economy; it suggests the need for sensible development policies that will make land available for essential needs.
The City of Edinburgh Council's strategy of concentrating its development on brownfield sites but looking at a plan-led approach to releasing greenfield land in the south-east wedge is one that we should commend to all local authorities. When it is necessary to use greenfield or green-belt sites, that should be plan led and have built into it the transport criteria, such as the multi-modal corridors, that the Minister for Transport and the Environment has talked about on other occasions.
Many issues in addition to planning are relevant to this debate. We have had brief opportunities in Parliament to quiz the minister on statements she has made on air quality, waste management, the strategy for investment in water and the treatment of waste materials. We have not yet had a discussion on open-cast coal, quarrying or other minerals issues, but they are very significant for the environment. I hope that we will have the opportunity for a substantial exchange on all those interconnecting issues.
I emphasise that my amendment is lodged not in a disputatious tone, but to show that we accept and champion the principle of sustainability and welcome the ministerial group that the minister has established. I suggest that the Executive might wish to establish some openness by making the minutes or reports of the group's meetings available so that we all know where the debate is going.
There was much excitement before the establishment of this Parliament about what it might mean for planning. Planning professionals and organisations had great expectations. I do not suggest that those expectations cannot be fulfilled, but I point out that we have not yet had a debate on planning—we have not had an opportunity to discuss whether and to what extent the Executive intends to change the approach to planning. Planning was mentioned only briefly in the minister's speech today, and I hope that she will soon communicate the general thrust of the decisions that she will make in the current round of planning decisions.
We can all share a belief in the concept of sustainability. As the minister said, that concept was first publicised by the Brundtland report, was built into the Rio declaration in 1992 and has been a recurring theme of international gatherings and agreements since then. Since the early 1990s, our planning guidelines and advice notices have been systematically amended to take into account the essential mission of sustainability.
We do not think that there is any conflict between economic development and sustainability. Sustainability is a measurement by which economic development proposals might be judged, shaped or moulded. We are concerned that, in her approach to new planning policy, the minister should continue to reflect on the need to make land available for essential purposes. One of the successes of planning in the past decade and more has been the extent to which it has been possible to recycle brownfield land. We all share that objective, but there are occasions when recycled, brownfield sites cannot be found—for example for town-centre retailing, house building or economic development. It is important that we continue to have a commitment when necessary to use greenfield sites, taking sustainability as the criterion to select the sites. It is also important that we measure and mitigate the environmental disadvantages and establish controls and conditions that balance development with sustainability.
Even in an economy that is considerably less heated than that of the south-east of the United Kingdom, there is urban cramming in many towns and cities in Scotland and tremendous pressure for development on every available scrap of land. We hear of land exchanging at prices that most of us find unbelievable—I have heard, anecdotally, of a site in Edinburgh selling for £6 million per acre. That is a serious distortion in our economy; it suggests the need for sensible development policies that will make land available for essential needs.
The City of Edinburgh Council's strategy of concentrating its development on brownfield sites but looking at a plan-led approach to releasing greenfield land in the south-east wedge is one that we should commend to all local authorities. When it is necessary to use greenfield or green-belt sites, that should be plan led and have built into it the transport criteria, such as the multi-modal corridors, that the Minister for Transport and the Environment has talked about on other occasions.
Many issues in addition to planning are relevant to this debate. We have had brief opportunities in Parliament to quiz the minister on statements she has made on air quality, waste management, the strategy for investment in water and the treatment of waste materials. We have not yet had a discussion on open-cast coal, quarrying or other minerals issues, but they are very significant for the environment. I hope that we will have the opportunity for a substantial exchange on all those interconnecting issues.
I emphasise that my amendment is lodged not in a disputatious tone, but to show that we accept and champion the principle of sustainability and welcome the ministerial group that the minister has established. I suggest that the Executive might wish to establish some openness by making the minutes or reports of the group's meetings available so that we all know where the debate is going.
In the same item of business
The Minister for Transport and the Environment (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
Environmental and sustainable policies are at the heart of everything that our Executive stands for. In moving this motion, I want to keep sustainable develo...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I am grateful for the tenor and spirit of the minister's speech. It may come as a surprise to some in this chamber and elsewhere that I do not seek to take i...
Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I thought at times during Kenny MacAskill's speech that I had strayed into time for reflection or thought for the day. In his generally consensual and constr...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
It is my intention to communicate the thrust of what we are discussing in the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland. I am looking at how we might do that...
Mr Tosh:
Con
I thank the minister for that very positive statement, which allows us to conclude in a tone of considerable, broad agreement. We have only one, limited plan...
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD):
LD
Today I have found out two things—that rhetoric can be at different levels and that it can be both consensual and aggressive. The contrast between the mornin...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I support the minister. One of the difficulties that I had in preparing for this debate was that the minister is making such rapid progress on all these issu...
Mr MacAskill:
SNP
Can Helen Eadie assure this chamber that fuel prices will not escalate in next month's budget? We may have to face a fuel duty escalator with a different nam...
Helen Eadie:
Lab
We have already announced modifications to the fuel duty escalator, as Kenny MacAskill knows. It will continue to be used to develop public transport, which ...
Mr Tosh:
Con
Coming to a debate on sustainability when we had heard nothing from the minister on planning issues and other issues related to development, it was impossibl...
Helen Eadie:
Lab
Thank you.The magnitude of the work that we have ahead of us is such that, despite the best will of all of us, we have to commit to it absolutely, because ne...
Irene McGugan (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The Government development strategy document states that "the overall aim of all our policies for rural Scotland is to foster and enable the sustainable deve...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
It is a great shame that there are not more people here for the first debate on sustainability in this Parliament. I welcome the tone and content of Sarah Bo...
Dr Sylvia Jackson (Stirling) (Lab):
Lab
If sustainable development began to rank as a key issue in the late 1990s, it is clear that, as we go into the new millennium, global survival depends on eac...
Mr John Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
As I came in, I picked up the little booklet "Scotland the sustainable?" and one item caught my eye: "If sustainable development is so sensible, why is more ...
Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am delighted to contribute to this important debate, which I hope—unlike many debates on subjects such as sustainable development and other environmental m...
Dr Jackson:
Lab
I inquired into why we had only just received the recycling bins and I gather that the contract had to go out to tender. I do not know whether Mr Lochhead wa...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Thank you for that intervention. It says quite a lot about the Government's policy. This country has an abundance of natural resources, and hundreds of thous...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Does Mr Lochhead think that there was a problem with Westminster because it is in London, or because of the political priorities of the Government at the time?
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
Well, both. I am sure that the minister will not be surprised to know that I am about to come on to the difficulty with Westminster. Although the SNP will su...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Will Richard Lochhead give way?
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
No, I have already taken two interventions. Surely it would be much more productive and valuable for Scotland to have a seat at the United Nations and to pla...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
Before I call Maureen Macmillan, I should tell Parliament that recycling is a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and that the Presiding Off...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I thank John Farquhar Munro for his speech on transport in the Highlands. Perhaps we in the Highlands and Islands have a different perspective on sustainable...
Robin Harper:
Green
Does Maureen Macmillan agree that it is astonishing that the Executive said that the land reform bill had nothing to do with the environment? Does she think ...
Maureen Macmillan:
Lab
I am talking about sustainable development. When communities can own their own land, we will see such development. We are looking for balance. Debates in the...
Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD):
LD
The debate has been very welcome, and many members have made good, fundamental points. I was pleased to hear that the minister's priorities will be to cut wa...
Dr Winnie Ewing (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):
SNP
I am sure that the member would be as thrilled as I was on a recent visit to Shetland to see the incinerator programme there. All waste from Shetland and mos...
Euan Robson:
LD
I agree with the member. More could also be done to use recycled building waste in construction. I welcome the minister's comments on sustainable travel. She...
Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I had the pleasure of being the inaugural chairman of the Association of Scottish Community Councils. One of the first things that we managed to do, in consu...