NEWS RELEASE - Planning white paper betrays communities
Posted on June 29, 2005GREEN MSP MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release Wednesday 29 June, 2005
PLANNING: REFORMS BRANDED “SHAMELESS BETRAYAL” OF COMMUNITIES
Greens today slammed the Executive’s planning bill statement as a shameless betrayal and disenfranchisement of communities. Failure to give real weight to public views nor truly enabling a more consensual style of planning will inevitably lead to protracted wrangling and lengthy legal conflicts, Green MSP Patrick Harvie argued, and will fuel public mistrust of the system. (1)
Greens welcome as ‘crumbs of comfort’ proposals for more public consultation at the local level, for example in the introduction of a pre-application consultation in limited circumstances. However, Greens are concerned that communities and objectors’ opinions may fall on deaf ears and will hold little sway in the process - as happened on a national level when ministers reportedly rejected the introduction of third party right of appeal (TPRA) BEFORE the end of the TPRA consultation.
Harvie today challenged Communities Minister Malcolm Chisholm in the Chamber on plans to strip local authorities of the right to examine the NEED FOR specific development in inquiries, rather than just the detail. Greens suspect that this “power grab” is in preparation for 2007 when the new PR voting system will see Labour lose control of councils across Scotland.
The reform of the planning system has already been controversial. Recently leaked documents which formed the basis of the bill indicated that ministers plan to centralise planning powers and limit the scope of Public Inquiries so that they do not examine or question the need for the development.
Following the Minister’s answer Mr Harvie, Greens’ speaker on communities, said, “It is very clear that the Executive is engaged in a shameless betrayal of its commitment to environmental justice. Fine words spoken by Jack McConnell and his Ministers are worth nothing if people continue to be side-lined and even utterly ignored in the planning system. More consultation is all very well, but it is quite clear that people’s views will carry no real weight in the planning system - no more than they did in the Executive’s own consultations which showed strong support for wider appeal rights and other reforms. The National Planning Framework will clearly limit the power of local authorities and communities to challenge major developments on grounds of ‘need’. It appears that Labour is determined to shore up any loss of power it anticipates once fair voting comes to local councils.”
“The only way to ensure that the planning system places people’s quality of life and the protection of the environment on an equal footing with economic interests is to make this the purpose of the bill - a planning system designed for sustainable development rather than one designed for business interests alone. As it stands the Executive’s White Paper overwhelmingly serves business interests with some crumbs of comfort thrown in for communities.”
On public opinion in favour of fairness, Harvie said, “The many people who took the time to respond to the Executive’s consultation exercises will feel betrayed - 86% respondents favoured the introduction of TPRA but they are now being faced with the prospect that major developments will be rubber-stamped by those in power, and that parts of the planning system will simply be closed off to the public.”
According to news reports last year, ministers had decided against introducing TPRA before the end of the consultation. Harvie added, “The fact that there is encouragement for more consultation almost adds insult to injury. Why should people bother to participate when they know that the government in Scotland will simply continue to put inconvenient views of the public straight in the bin? Ministers say they’re willing to listen - but only when they like what they hear.”
ENDS
For further information call the Green MSP press office on 0131 348 6360/0771 761 8771.
Notes
1. See www.scottishgreens.org.uk
2. The document apparently states: “There would not be a role for a lengthy, exhaustive formal public consultation, nor for a planning inquiry led by reporters . . . The inclusion of a project in the NPF, however, will limit the scope for it to be challenged on the grounds of need . . . simplifying the inquiry by limiting the issues to those such as location and detailed consideration of associated environmental effects.”
Briefing on planning bill
Posted on June 27, 2005GREEN MSPs’ BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON PLANNING BILL
Ahead of the forthcoming White Paper on Planning, Green MSPs have prepared a briefing on the background to the bill explaining why the current system needs to change, and what changes should be made. At the end of this document are some quotes for general use.
The White Paper proposals will confirm the true priorities of Ministers and whether or not First Minister Jack McConnell will hold true to his pledge in February 2002 to deliver environmental justice to everyone in Scotland.
Greens would like reforms to the planning system to include:
- sustainable development made explicitly the purpose of planning
- full community involvement in the development of local plans
- meaningful public involvement in planning decisions, including the introduction of Third Party Right of Appeal
- strengthened planning regulations on house building to prioritise environmental and community impacts
- the protection of greenbelt land and urban green spaces
THIRD PARTY RIGHT OF APPEAL (TPRA)
Opponents of TPRA often assume that it could lead to every development being opposed – this is wrong. The case for TPRA is being put forward on a limited basis so that it would only come into play in specific circumstances.
Currently, developers have the right to appeal planning decisions, but objectors - such as local residents or NGOs - do not have a similar right. Greens argue that this makes the system inherently unfair and biased, and compromises public capacity for involvement in local planning.
Last year, BBC Scotland reported that there was no significant ministerial support for introducing Third Party Right of Appeal – even before the consultation on TPRA had drawn to a close – proving that the Executive decides policy with little regard for respondents’ views.
TPRA is a longstanding manifesto commitment of the Greens. Two main reasons for this are:
- The need to oppose environmentally unsound developments
- The injustice of having a developer right of appeal, but no similar right for objectors.
- The need to stimulate more engagement between developers and communities before developments are promoted.
We believe that the introduction of TPRA would:
- Create a fairer and more effective planning system for all.
- Create a more inclusive and accountable planning system, which would protect communities and help deliver environmental justice.
- Create a more reliable and predictable plan-led system, which could also improve the quality of planning applications (including better pre-application consultations).
- Create a better perception of the planning system and thus increase people’s trust that they have a system which will deliver quality outcomes for all parties concerned.
The Green MSPs recognise that, in providing for a fair and effective, workable planning system, the right of appeal should be limited to the following categories:
- Cases where the local authority has an interest. The extension of the M74 in Glasgow is one example of this. This category is crucial to ensure the planning system is more open and transparent.
- Cases where the application is contrary to the local plan. Deviating from development plans serves to alienate the public and devalue the forward planning process. Many authorities are also operating with out-of-date plans. TPRA would provide an additional incentive to bring development plans up-to-date.
- Cases when planning officers have recommended rejection. Planning officers’ are professionals who are required to give impartial advice on planning matters. It is only fair that communities should have the right to ask for further scrutiny of the application by calling for an appeal.
- Cases where an Environmental Impact Assessment is needed. It is vital for the planning system to encourage sustainable development.
Third parties able to appeal should include those who objected to the original planning application - but it could be extended to those who responded to the original planning application. Original objectors or respondents would include statutory consultees, local residents, community councils, interest groups and NGOs as well as other developers and small businesses.
NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK – COMMUNITIES DISENFRANCHISED?
Earlier this year, the Herald reported that a leaked Executive document from Communities Minister Malcolm Chisholm entitled Modernising the Scottish Planning system. (1) The document, to form the basis of the White Paper, spelled out plans for a “significantly enhanced role and status for a revised National Planning Framework” which would change “the way nationally important proposals are processed to allow ministers to ensure that these are dealt with appropriately.”
It is expected that ministers will propose limiting the scope of public inquiries into developments of “national strategic importance” so that alternatives to, or the need for, a proposed development cannot be examined. (2)
Under this scheme, objectors to the Glasgow M74 Extension would not have been able to argue against the need for the motorway itself, and it is unlikely that any local inquiry would have taken place. Similarly, the public’s right to object to other major developments such as landfill sites, opencast coalmining and potentially nuclear power stations would be severely restricted.
In the case of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, which could cost £450 million of public money, this would mean discarding the evidence showing that the road will reduce city centre congestion by a mere 2%. Greens argue that for the sake of vulnerable communities across Scotland, the environment and democratic process, we must oppose limiting the scope of inquiries.
Ministers could “dictate” even local plans on issues such as waste management, hospitals or schools. In language which will alarm local authorities, the document says the minister proposes “a more proactive approach” to issues the Executive “expects to see addressed”.
This anticipated ‘power grab’ away from local communities would clear the way for Ministers to force through plans for nuclear power stations, motorways and other environmentally damaging developments. It appears that not only will individuals, campaigners and community groups remain locked out of major decisions, but even their locally elected representatives will have a reduced role.
The Executive’s obsession with GDP growth above all else, and appeasing the big business lobby is evident - the Minister also proposes “a development control process to give ministers the opportunity to intervene to expedite decisions on national strategic developments, which would involve a swifter call-in process. As our top priority is to grow Scotland’s economy, we should make it clear to planning authorities that major applications should be given top priority”.
QUOTES FOR GENERAL USE
On the primacy of business interests, Patrick Harvie MSP, Green speaker on communities, said, “The indications so far are that only the needs of business appear to matter to the Scottish Executive, and it seems that only the views of business lobby have been heard.”
On public opinion in favour of fairness, Harvie said, “The many people who took the time to respond to the Executive’s consultation exercises will feel betrayed - 86% respondents favoured the introduction of TPRA but they are now being faced with the prospect that major developments will be rubber-stamped by those in power, and that parts of the planning system will simply be closed off to the public.”
On the ministerial rejection of TPRA before the end of the consultation, Harvie said, “The fact that there will be encouragement for more consultation only adds insult to injury. Why should people bother to participate when they know that the government in Scotland will simply continue to put inconvenient views of the public straight in the bin? Ministers say they’re willing to listen - but only when they like what they hear.”
ENDS
Notes
1. See www.scottishgreens.org.uk
2. The document apparently states: “There would not be a role for a lengthy, exhaustive formal public consultation, nor for a planning inquiry led by reporters . . . The inclusion of a project in the NPF, however, will limit the scope for it to be challenged on the grounds of need . . . simplifying the inquiry by limiting the issues to those such as location and detailed consideration of associated environmental effects.”
Software patents
Posted on June 23, 2005EUROPEAN GREENS PRESS RELEASE – Software patents
Conservatives and liberals deal a blow to small business and innovation
Commenting on a vote on the software patenting directive in the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee yesterday, Eva Lichtenberger Austrian Green member of the committee, and Monica Frassoni, co-president of the Greens/EFA group, said:
“This vote opens the doors for the software market’s dinosaurs. Members of the EPP and ALDE groups consistently voted to adopt the weakest amendments and thus watered down the text in order to create maximum legal uncertainty. This will give big business the opportunity – with the help of well-paid patent lawyers – to sew up the European market and throw out smaller players.”
“Though all political groups claim that they want to exclude ‘pure’ software patents from the directive. the pro-big business majority in the committee succeeded in creating dangerous loopholes. A definition of the difference between software and technique, for example, says that software can be considered to be the novel feature in an invention, and thus is patentable.”
“For consumers and clients one of the most important criteria is interoperability. Here a majority of mainly conservative and liberal committee members chose a definition that was tailor-made for companies like Nokia to give them the possibility of earning extra-money on patent fees if someone else decides to construct interoperable technical devices.”
“The vote is a major blow to small and medium enterprises and the conservatives and liberals were definitely aware of what they were doing. In some amendments they favoured creating a fund and a committee to help SMEs threatened by patent litigation. This is a bit like wounding someone but giving them painkillers afterwards.”
“As defenders of free software and SMEs in Europe we were unable to win this first vote. But in the decisive vote in the July plenary session we will do our outmost to prevail. The stakes are high. We risk losing our capability to protect SMEs from the expensive and time-consuming process of patent litigation, and seeing a highly innovative part of the European economy ‘colonised’ by Microsoft and the other IT giants.”
NEWS RELEASE - Executive ducks the ID issue
Posted on June 16, 2005GREEN MSP MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release 16th June 2005
TOM McCABE AGAIN ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE BIG BROTHER DATABASE QUESTION
Green MSPs who have spearheaded a campaign in the Scottish Parliament against the plan for ID cards and a National Identity Register, were disappointed today that the Minister Tom McCabe avoided answering detailed points on the use of a National Identity Database which is the major part of the proposed ID card system. Mr McCabe repeated points again and again about ID cards and his proposal for a separate ‘entitlement card’.
Patrick Harvie MSP, said: “The Minister tells us that he has been ‘clear all along’ about the use of ID cards for accessing devolved services. But the motion agreed by Parliament called for a statement not on the cards, but on the National Identity Register – the database – and its use by devolved institutions. Given that this statement today is a response to that call, it is perhaps surprising that only one paragraph of an eight page statement relates to the database.
“None of the serious concerns about the use of the database have been addressed – nothing on function creep, nothing on data sharing, nothing on the presumption of accuracy – a huge problem given that much smaller, simpler systems such as NI numbers and driving licences are riddled with inaccuracies – nothing on the fact that individuals will be required to pay for the privilege of having inaccurate information corrected.
“And nothing on the question of how and in what circumstances devolved institutions will use their new ability to access information on the register. Just the repeated line – ID cards will not be used to access devolved services. Yet the Minster tells us that he can give “no more solid assurance” about his approach to the scheme. I think he could if he tried. We need a clear commitment that no public services will be affected by the information on the database, and we need to know that the most restrictive possible approach will be taken to the whole scheme.”
For more information contact 0790 99 33 074
Notes to editors
1. Motion lodged in the parliament today: That the Parliament welcomes the fact that public support for identity cards is falling, as a recent poll by ICM showed that 43% of the population now consider ID cards to be a bad, or very bad idea; reiterates that a majority of MSPs backed parliamentary motion S2M-2463, which stated that proposals for an identity card and database scheme are flawed on political, technical and financial grounds, and that the scheme offers an ineffective response to problems of security and fraud, and poses an unacceptable threat to civil liberties; further notes its concern that individuals could pay up to £300 for an ID card; believes that the cost of an ID card amounts to little more than a new poll tax for the people of Scotland and calls upon the UK Government to drop the current proposals for ID cards and a National Identity Database.
2. The vote in February which sparked this statement was 52 for, 47 against, 15 abstentions.
Motion agreed by the Parliament: *S2M-2463 Patrick Harvie: Identity Cards-That the Parliament notes the Identity Cards Bill currently being considered by the Westminster Parliament; is concerned at the lack of time devoted to the scrutiny of this Bill, which has left important questions unanswered over how the identity card scheme will work in practice; believes the proposals to be flawed on political, technical and financial grounds; is concerned that the national identity card and database offer an ineffective response to problems of security and fraud and pose an unacceptable threat to civil liberties; notes that the current cost estimate for the scheme is £5.5 billion and that further escalation of this cost is expected; rejects the Prime Minister’s belief, stated on 1 December 2004 in the House of Commons, that “it is legitimate and right, in this day and age, to ask people to carry identity cards” which appears to go far beyond the current scope of the Bill and would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament; welcomes the Scottish Executive’s position that identity cards will not be required to allow access to devolved public services, and calls on the Executive to make a full statement on the intended use of the identity database by devolved institutions.
3. China’s decision to halt plans for ID cards on ‘human rights’ violation grounds. www.chinapost.com.tw
Another motion related to this lodged today: That the Parliament congratulates the Council of Grand Justices in China for its recent decision to freeze a new ID card law requiring fingerprinting because it might constitute a violation of human rights, and calls upon the UK Government to reconsider its position on identity cards.
4. Greens argue that ID cards will:
• Be costly and impractical: There is scepticism about the cost and operability of the scheme(£5.5bn and rising), as well as the government’s ability to manage the technology. Large government IT projects are renowned for cost over-runs and technical hitches. This will be the most ambitious such project in history.
• Lead to loss of privacy: There will be a massive database containing an unprecedented amount of personal information on people.
• Worsen harassment of minority groups: They’ll provide another pretext for stop-and-search, often directed at ethnic minorities
• Have little impact on counter-terrorism: Terrorist networks would soon be able to produce counterfeit cards or papers enabling people to get legitimate cards. While former Home Secretary, David Blunkett admitted that it would be possible to register for a card using a false identity, but was satisfied that a person would then “be stuck with it for life”. How much of a problem would this really be for a suicide bomber?
• Have little effect on illegal working: Employers who are already willing to break the law won’t be put off by identity cards.
• Be subject to ‘function creep’: The functions of the card will grow over time as it stores more personal information. More agencies will demand to see it, effectively making it necessary for people to carry one.
5. For information about No2ID go to: www.no2id.net
Speech from sexual health debate
Posted on June 15, 2005Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Yesterday, I talked at an event that the Telephone Helplines Association organised. The event gave me the opportunity to reminisce about my experience of working for the Sexwise helpline, which provides sexual health information to young people between the ages of 12 and 18. I used to do two shifts a week; it was not the best job I have had in my life because pressure was high and it involved taking many phone calls and much abuse. People often wanted very simple information; for example, time after time, they wanted terms to be defined. By the time I left that job, I must have defined most sexual activities more times than I will ever participate in them—not a happy thought for a single twentysomething.
That experience reinforced for me the huge number of myths that existed then. I came to that job thinking that many of those myths would have died off decades earlier, but they are still out there. We need to take serious action to tackle the great deal of ignorance and myth that continue to exist. Later in my career, I worked as a full-time youth worker, when it was again brought home to me that as far as people’s sexual health needs and the issues that impact on their sexual health are concerned, individuals gain a wide range of experiences at school, at home and at work. We need to be aware of that wide range of experiences.
The Conservative party is right to tell us that parents have a responsibility for young people’s sexual health and the Executive’s strategy is right to say the same thing; we all acknowledge the importance of parents’ role. However, we must also acknowledge that not all parents exercise that role and that the vast majority of those who do so support the provision of good quality sex education at school on top of—not as an alternative to—their own efforts. They also support young people’s access to services and information. As Scott Barrie said, not all parents will be able or willing to provide the necessary information and support.
I condemn the idea of giving school boards and parents a veto over the use of specific materials. We all saw how ugly the section 28 debate got. You can bet your bottom dollar that, if that power were available, it would be exercised and abused by some of the most unpleasant elements in society. If Nanette Milne believes what she says about wanting to support the LGBT community and its specific sexual health needs, I ask her to re-examine her policy on that right to veto.
I turn to the Scottish National Party amendment. One of the concerns in respect of sexual health as a whole has been about timescales for solid implementation plans. The Green party believes that it is worth supporting an amendment that calls for timescales to be published. Even if, at the end of the day, we expect the timescales to come from the advisory committee, we should say that we want them. We support the intention behind the SNP amendment, which asks for timescales.
The motion calls on Parliament to welcome the strategy. I welcome it, but it is most important that I do so because of the principles on which it is based. Sexual health is not just about an absence of disease; it is about a range of social and emotional—and political—factors that impact on people’s sexual health and their ability and confidence to access services.
However, I have one or two caveats about the wording of the strategy document. It takes six areas as starting points, the second of which is that
“committed and stable relationships, characterised by these values, are the right setting for sexual relationships”.
My point may be about just a minor aspect of language, but it is wrong to suggest that people should not have sex and that we should disapprove of people who have sex outwith committed and stable relationships. Committed and stable relationships are fantastic and we should support them and encourage people to pursue them. However, equally we should not disapprove of people just because they have sex outwith such settings.
My amendment deals with the balance between clinical and prevention services. It is perhaps understandable that the minister’s speech focused largely on the clinical side. There is a great deal that we need to get right in our clinical services and in the way in which people can access a range of services. I am thinking of local services and services that need to be accessible not only geographically and physically but because they meet specific needs.
We also have to get right prevention and education. If we want to create a culture of respect and responsibility, GUM clinics are not the place to do it; the whole of society is that place. There is little point in putting all our resources into clinical services. We need to improve health and not just to treat ill-health.
We need to put equality and diversity at the heart of our understanding of the issues. We have to recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work and that we need to consider issues such as age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and language. Legal status is also important, for example in addressing the needs of asylum seekers and refugees who come from different countries and who have a different range of sexual health needs. They might have a different concept of what sexual health is and of their relationship to treatment and medical services, for example. Those matters are implicit in the strategy, but we need to ensure that they are explicit in everything that we do. I look forward to the committee coming up with the explicit aspects of the strategy.
My amendment mentions the Caledonia Youth project, whose Glasgow branch has been examining specifically the needs of excluded young people. That work has included young offenders at Her Majesty’s young offenders institution Polmont and young people who are coming out of care—the sort of people who are excluded from a wide range of mainstream support services.
If we end up with the loss of existing services and if existing professionals move to other fields, lose their skills or even their motivation because of uncertainty about funding, we will go in the wrong direction. We should build services. Eventually, the new funding for the strategy will build on existing provision but, in the meantime, we absolutely must not lose our existing services.
Again, I welcome the strategy and the fact that a committee has been appointed to work on the subject. I encourage Andy Kerr in his visit to the Sandyford clinic to take the opportunity to meet the people at Caledonia Youth; that clinic is where they are based.
I want to underline that there will be a continued need for proper resourcing, and for good work with the voluntary sector as well as with the public sector, and that we will need political will. A minority of people—they present themselves as the moral majority—do not want there to be sex education or recognition of equality and diversity. It will take continued political will to ensure that that agenda does not hold sway, and that instead we end up improving the sexual health of Scotland’s young and old people.
I move amendment S2M-2958.4, to insert at end:
“recognises that there is a need both for clinical services and for prevention work which enables individuals to take greater control of their own sexual health and that both elements must be delivered in ways which recognise the diversity of the population and respect their equal rights to information and services; is concerned, therefore, by the decision by NHS Greater Glasgow to cut the funding to Caledonia Youth’s Glasgow branch, which will lead to the closure of a service with a record of working to address the sexual health needs of excluded young people, and calls on the Executive to work with NHS boards to ensure that existing services are maintained and improved upon wherever possible.”
ID Cards pledge campaign
Posted on June 13, 2005This is a message sent to the no2id-supporters list. Please copy it to anyone you think will be interested.
Dear friend,
As the Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill approaches, NO2ID have initiated a pledge for those who will resist compulsory registration for a State-issued ID card. This is the first in a series of pledges intended to demonstrate the depth and breadth of opposition to the proposals BEFORE the legislation makes it through Parliament. Speed is therefore of the essence.
Please, if you can, make your pledge at www.pledgebank.com/refuse and pass on or promote this message/link to as many sympathetic people and groups, mailing lists, bulletin boards and publications as you can *without spamming*.
(Why not write a letter to your local paper?)
To spread the message further PledgeBank provide flyers and posters to print out, and people can also pledge by texting ‘pledge refuse’ to 60022 [standard text rate].
N.B. if you prefer to keep your online pledge private, simply uncheck the ‘Show my name on this pledge’ box before signing.
Our first pledge and target is as follows:
“I will refuse to register for an ID card and donate £10 to a legal defence fund but only if 10,000 other people will also make this same pledge.”
— Phil Booth, NO2ID National Coordinator
Polls have shown for some time that 3 - 4 million people across the UK strongly oppose the Government’s plans to introduce ID cards and a National Identity Register. Were this many of us refuse to cooperate then the scheme would be doomed to failure.
If the Government do manage to force through the ID cards legislation, this pledge will not only demonstrate the level of solidarity amongst opponents of the scheme - it will form the basis of a fighting fund* and support network for all those who refuse to comply.
NO2ID continues to campaign against the introduction of ID cards and the National Identity Register on all fronts, for more information on what you can do NOW, please visit www.no2id.net
Thank you for your continued support, together we shall beat this.
Thanks also to mySociety for building the PledgeBank site - keep an eye out for future NO2ID pledges.
Phil Booth
*all monies pledged will be held in trust for use in defending those individuals who are prosecuted for resisting registration.
Non!
Posted on June 2, 2005“Non!” The verdict which the French electorate has passed on the proposed European Constitution has been taken as an emphatic rejection. But what exactly did it reject?
There are many on the political left who argue that it’s a rejection of free markets and neoliberalism. There are those on the right who say it’s the rejection of a project which would undermine national identity and sovereignty. Then again there are the French commentators who recognise that many voters were really sending a signal to the French government itself, and rejecting its domestic policies.
That’s the problem with referendums. Though they are necessary sometimes, they can be difficult to interpret. Without any guarantee of clear reasons for a decision, a simple yes or no is given and although governments and pundits alike may struggle to understand it they are all forced to accept it.
But accept it they must. When the European Council meets in Brussels later this month there can be no jiggery-pokery. France has vetoed the current treaty and promised not to repeat the ballot. The Netherlands are likely to follow them before this column goes to press. There must be much talking and listening before events move on, and I don’t just mean governments talking and listening to each other.
I believe that what many French voters have rejected is the idea that the European project should serve the interests of governments alone. It should be there to serve the people of Europe, and if that’s to happen the process has to be a far more democratic one.
It’s a bit like Glasgow City Council promising to consult on the future of George Square, and then presenting the city with a handful of oblong boxes and the question “café, café or café?”
There can be no question but that the majority of French voters consider themselves pro-European. But their vision for Europe is not the one they saw presented to them, and they’re not prepared to just give a Gallic shrug and let it go. Most people I know in Scotland are much the same, even those who are solidly in the ‘no’ camp. They want a Europe they can believe in and feel part of, but the one that’s on offer doesn’t measure up – why would it when it wasn’t designed for them? It was designed for governments.
Most Green parties in Europe took a position which was a combination of pragmatism and idealism – to recognise what was good and bad about the treaty and to campaign not for simple ‘yes’ votes but for a constructive agenda to change it for the better, through the mechanism known as the Citizens’ Initiative. In the event of the treaty’s adoption, this could have resulted in a First Amendment to strengthen the accountability and democratic values, to replace the dominance of the market with an emphasis on sustainability, and to equip Europe to be a force for peace in the wider world just as it has been a force for peace within the continent in the past.
There is no reason why that positive agenda needs to die with the existing Constitutional treaty. Far from it, this rejection could be the beginning of a change for the better, forcing the governments of Europe to bring the voices of their citizens into the debate where they belong. This will require the development of active European citizenship, for if it’s led by governments it will be tainted by the same mistrust which scuppered the Constitution. If that is allowed to happen, this moment of great potential in modern European history will pass us by.
NEWS RELEASE - Loss of green spaces
Posted on June 1, 2005MSP APPEALS FOR HALT TO GLASGOW’S VANISHING GREEN SPACES
Glasgow’s Green MSP Patrick Harvie will today repeat his call for a moratorium on the sale of the city’s green spaces to developers.
In this afternoon’s Parliamentary debate on Protecting Land Use for Sport and Physical Activity [1], Mr Harvie will argue that there must be a proper assessment of the needs of communities for green spaces and increased community involvement in the planning system before any more land is sold off.
Mr Harvie said: “Unless there is new legislation forcing local authorities to protect green spaces for recreational use, Glasgow’s reputation as a ‘dear green place’ will be lost forever.”
“National policy principles which exist to preserve green spaces are continually contravened by Glasgow’s Labour-led Council who appear to favour development at any cost.”
“At present the Council can allow developers to destroy football pitches, tennis pitches and bowling greens – as long as some financial compensation is made to a nearby recreational facility to improve facilities there. The Council have no interest in the protection of existing sites. As a result green space across the city is being swallowed up at an alarming rate.”
Mr Harvie said one example of this happening was at Dowanhill Tennis Club [2]. The courts were originally gifted to the community but are now being sold off to developers who are building a block of expensive, luxury flats. “While a few individuals make enormous profits, the community has lost yet another recreational space” he explained.
Another example is in Cathcart where the Backpark was originally two football pitches which were used for Sunday league teams [3]. Without consulting local residents, the Council rezoned the space for housing and it is now set to be the site of another block of luxury flats.
“It is perhaps ironic that Mike Watson brought forward this debate. The Backpark is in his constituency and yet he has not opposed the development of the pitches” Mr Harvie said.
“These green spaces are the lungs of the city and are cherished by local communities – they are informal places for children to play, people to walk their dogs and to congregate on a sunny day. Their destruction is inexcusable.”
“A recent study into links between environmental justice and social deprivation found that Councils have been cutting the funding for recreation and outdoor departments for decades [4]. The report stated that authorities are often moving to cut their maintenance costs wherever possible, causing the loss of high quality public green spaces. Cities like Glasgow are not only losing our green spaces, but what remains is often derelict land rather than well managed space.”
“The Scottish Executive has a duty to strengthen the public’s involvement in planning. They must begin by introducing wider rights of appeal for communities, similar to those that are presently enjoyed by developers [5].”
Ends
For more information contact Fiona Barnes on 0131 348 6424 or Green MSPs Press Office on 0131 348 6360
Notes to Editors:
[1] Member’s Business, 5pm, Scottish Parliament. Motion for Debate; S2M-2615# Mike Watson: Protecting Land Use for Organised Sport and Other Forms of Physical Activity - That the Parliament notes with concern the continuing diminution in the number of sports pitches and open space across Scotland, despite the efforts of Sportscotland and the National Playing Fields Association Scotland; believes that this will make it more difficult for the Scottish Executive to achieve its stated aim of improving the health of young people in Scotland and reducing levels of obesity; endorses the need, as expressed in the report of the Physical Activity Task Force, for all primary and secondary pupils to have a minimum of two hours each week of quality physical education, and considers that the Executive should ensure that more robust measures are introduced to the planning process to protect land used for organised sport and other forms of physical activity.
[2] For more information go to:
[3] The Backpark is a piece of land at the back of the old cinema at Cathcart Road. The area was listed as recreational space but in August 2003 Glasgow City Council changed this surplus to requirements and zoned it for housing. No local residents or organisations were consulted on this. There are currently plans before the council to build 90 luxury flats with parking spaces on this much cherished land where kids ride bikes, play football, people walk dogs and where foxes and bats hunt.
[4] ‘Investigating environmental justice in Scotland: links between measures of environmental quality and social deprivation’ P111 by: The Scotland and Northern Ireland Research forum (SNIFFER)
See: www.sniffer.org.uk
[5] Greens want to see a third party right of appeal introduced in the forthcoming planning legislation for developments which require an environmental impact assessment; in which the planning authority has an interest; which are contrary to the local development plan, or approved developments which were subject to planning officers’ recommendation for refusal.
Recent updates
Latest tweets