Hansard

I thank the many organisations that have sent us briefings today. I realise that they had a very short time to pull together their key observations, and their briefings have been really helpful to me—and I suspect others—in preparing for this debate.

At its heart, planning is a democratic process that enables communities and their representatives to shape change. The purpose of the Labour amendment is to flag up our concerns about the increasing use of the term “sustainable economic growth” rather than “sustainable development”. We are concerned because a more sustainable Scotland will be created not just by willing it to happen but by the many incremental day-to-day decisions that are taken through the planning system and by infrastructure development.

Leadership is absolutely crucial and there is much to welcome in both the draft NPF3 and the draft SPP, but definitions are important. I will take the opportunity today to push the minister on the way that he has framed the purpose and objectives in the NPF, because the minister’s suggestion that economic benefit should trump other considerations would be a step backwards.

There has been a healthy debate on that issue in discussions on the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill. Third parties such as the Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK and Unison have flagged up their concerns that, whereas the term “sustainable development” has been used throughout the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament, is in our own legislation and has international status, European Union status and UK status, the term “sustainable economic growth” potentially means all things to all people and could justify short-term change that would have long-term negative impact. To put “sustainable economic growth” above “sustainable development” in the SPP is to put them the wrong way round.

I accept that, as the minister said, we are in a recession and are experiencing a severe economic downturn, and I understand the ambition to ensure that NPF3 and the SPP contribute to economic recovery—that is absolutely essential. However, we need to take a long-term perspective, too. If we are to deliver the sustainable, low-carbon Scotland that the Scottish Government motion refers to, we need to ensure that all development contributes to both the social and environmental objectives that are encompassed by sustainable development, alongside contributing to our economic objectives.

That is why we have flagged up that we are still not on the right trajectory to deliver either our short or long-term commitments on climate change. If we are being honest, we all know that some of the big gains that we have made on climate change emissions have been as a result of the recession. We need to make sure that, as we come out of recession, we do so without sacrificing those gains, as that would leave future generations with even harder challenges.

Planning is fundamental to delivering the vision of a sustainable Scotland. NPF3 will enable national priorities to be established that can be the basis of public and private investment. It should be a long-term commitment by the Scottish Government that gives a degree of certainty for business investment.

Identifying sites is not sufficient. Articles about rising house prices have begun to appear, suggesting to us that things are getting better on housing, but that is an indication of housing shortage rather than of a healthy housing market. There is an increasing premium on existing housing because there is a severe shortage of new build. In fact, we are at a historic low. Not since the second world war have we had so few new housing starts. There is a huge economic cost to the country and to the construction industry from the small number of housing starts: there is the economic cost of a lack of jobs and there is a cost to our capacity to grow. There is a major social price to pay, too.

Last month, the minister spoke at an Association of Women in Property event, at which he questioned whether we could expect the private sector to continue to contribute in the hard times to some of the infrastructure that local authorities now routinely expect to come as part of the planning process. There is a debate to be had on that. On one level the minister is right—private house-building companies are facing immense challenges in developing sites—but if we simply say that the requirements to contribute infrastructure should be reduced, that leaves the basic question of how that shortfall will be made up.

In the current economic climate, local authorities are already strapped for cash. Although many are pursuing innovative investment strategies—through tax incremental financing schemes, for example—if contributions to roads and schools do not come alongside new development, we will not get the high-quality communities to which we aspire. There is simply no straightforward alternative, and the Scottish Government needs to understand that.