Chamber
Plenary, 18 May 2005
18 May 2005 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Planning Process (M74)
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.
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.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
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 extensio...
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 t...
Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
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 mem...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
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 rou...
Rosie Kane:
SSP
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
You have one minute.
Rosie Kane:
SSP
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 th...
Mr Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab):
Lab
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 fal...
Rosie Kane:
SSP
Will the member give way?
Mr McAveety:
Lab
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 co...
Rosie Kane:
SSP
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...
Mr McAveety:
Lab
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 an...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
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 t...
Phil Gallie:
Con
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-movi...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
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 p...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green) rose—
Green
Rosie Kane:
SSP
Will the member give way?
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
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...
Patrick Harvie:
Green
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
Mr Ewing, Mr Harvie has a point of order.
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
I hope that I will get extra time.
Patrick Harvie:
Green
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
That sounded like an intervention; it was certainly not a point of order.
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
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 ...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
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 disappo...
Patrick Harvie:
Green
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 depe...
Bill Aitken:
Con
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 ...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
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...
Fergus Ewing:
SNP
Will the member give way?