|
“Porty Says No” proclaimed many T-shirts among the audience as we took
our seats. Bottles of spirits and glasses glinted from the roller
shuttered bar, writes Osbert Lancaster, CHE Executive Director, in View (Autumn 05), a special edition on devolution.
In front of the rows of chairs, behind bar room tables
piled with her files sat the Reporter, taking closing submissions on
the final day of the public inquiry into the development of an 80,000
sq ft superstore with parking for nearly 500 cars, that residents,
including myself, believe threatens to rip the heart out of the
thriving community of Portobello – formerly an separate borough, and
now part of Edinburgh.
For several weeks the Royal British Legion had been turned into a
quasi-court as the Reporter heard arguments from the developers, and
opposing them, from Edinburgh Council and the local community campaign
which eventually raised nearly £25,000 to pay for the cost of expert
witnesses. I joined a large crowd of local people for the final day of
the inquiry.
I heard the polite banter between the professional legal
representatives of the developers and council; I heard the measured
tones of the community’s representative (from Friends of the Earth Scotland)
underlain with passion; I heard the exasperated sighs of the audience
at many of the developer’s arguments which appeared to have no basis in
reality. I joined the laughter as the developer argued that the
proposed superstore would contribute to sustainable development and
reduce vehicle movement.
Months later the Reporter gave her decision: “I hereby dismiss your
client’s appeals and refuse to grant outline planning permissions for
the developments”. A triumph for the community and a vindication of the
huge efforts of the campaign committee and others. But a full reading
of the report leaves little doubt that a better prepared application
for a similar development might succeed.
Portobello’s been lucky this time; not only was the reporter’s decision
in our favour, but the Executive have not overturned the decision –
unlike the infamous case of the M74 where the Executive have ignored
the outcome of the public inquiry (see box 1), and propose building
Britain's largest urban motorway scheme: five miles of 6-lane elevated
motorway bulldozed through some of the poorest communities in Glasgow,
costing £500 million of taxpayers' money.
|
Box 1: From summary of inquiry report:
… it is concluded that the proposal would be very likely to have very
serious undesirable results; and that the economic and traffic benefits
of the project arising from the transfer of future jobs from other
parts of Scotland would be much more limited, more uncertain, and (in
the case of the congestion benefits) probably ephemeral. It is
therefore concluded that the public benefits of the proposal would be
insufficient to outweigh the considerable disadvantages that can be
expected.
Ref: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/transport/m74r-00.asp
See also http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/about/m74_appeal_intro.html
|
Planning procedures in Scotland have long been seen as arcane and
inequitable. We now have a Scottish Parliament that’s supposed to bring
democracy closer to the people, we have an Executive that talks up
sustainable development, that requires local authorities to engage with
local people through Community Planning – a process which offers the
potential for greater local democracy.
And yet despite overwhelming public support for a limited third
party right of appeal for communities, we have that same Executive
proposing changes to planning law that reject this, and even
curtail existing rights of involvement in planning decisions.
Back in Portobello we fear that the developers will try again. With
planning law looking set to remain blatantly unequal, if the
developer’s planning application is rejected by the Council, they can
appeal; if their planning application is successful, we will be denied
that option – we can only watch our already busy streets fill with more
traffic and watch the independent butchers, greengrocers, delicatessen,
fishmonger, hardware store and other local traders fade away. With its
heart dead, Portobello will become nothing more than another suburban
dormitory.
The man ahead of me in the queue had trouble with the metal detector as
we made our way through security; after he’d been relieved of a key
ring penknife, we were escorted to the Garden Lobby of the Scottish
Parliament. Fairtrade refreshment in hand, I mingled with other
suppliers to the parliament and chatted with procurement staff under
the upturned-boat roof.
Microphones were tapped and the presentations began. Introduced by Paul
Grice, the parliament’s chief executive, procurement staff explained
two new initiatives: ‘Contractor Performance Management’ and
‘Responsible Purchasing’. I was especially interested responsible
purchasing.
It felt good, listening to the staff I had worked with, and have great
respect for, outlining how they were integrating environmental and
social issues into the procedures for buying the goods and services
needed to run the parliament. Good, because here was the Scottish
Parliament taking these things seriously, and good for my ego: I (and
my colleagues) have been advising and supporting the procurement staff
develop these policies and procedures for responsible purchasing. And
now I was seeing all that work being translated into action as they
informed their suppliers how the programme would be rolled out. (See
box 2)
This is the sort of parliament I wanted from devolution.
|
Box 2: The Scottish Parliament’s Statement of Principles:
The Scottish Parliament is committed to Purchasing Responsibly in ways
which build on the Parliament’s strategic priorities and
contribute to Sustainable
Development Purchasing
Responsibly means:
-
Effectively meeting the needs of the Scottish Parliament for goods, services and minor works
-
Taking account of the impact of today’s decisions on people and the environment both now and in the future
-
Acting ethically at all times in our dealings with colleagues, customers, actual & potential suppliers
-
Having the necessary skills and knowledge to evaluate and respond to conflicting demands
-
Complying with regulations and taking reasonable steps to ensure that others act in compliance
For more information see:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/procurement/responsible.htm
|
I shout into the intercom over the noise from Princes Street and I’m
buzzed in. Up endless stairs to the small meeting room in an NGO
office. Another steering meeting of CORE Scotland – the Corporate
Responsibility Coalition Scotland. On behalf of their organisations, a
group of committed people – all already over-committed perhaps – have
taken on a big task.
CORE Scotland’s vision is of an economy in which all companies and
public authorities can be held responsible for the social and
environmental impact of their operations in Scotland and overseas. We
aim to promote ethical procurement by public authorities in Scotland,
creating a market for ethical goods and services, and eliminating
unethical companies from public contracts.
We got off to a good start with a launch at the Scottish Parliament,
addressed warmly by Tom McCabe, Minister for Finance and Public Service
Reform, in December last year. Since then several MSPs have asked
Parliamentary Questions relevant to CORE Scotland’s agenda.
CORE UK is working at Westminster, calling for the legal
requirement of directors' duties to be expanded to include a duty of
care for both communities and the environment. This is devolution in
action – a twin pronged approach with CORE UK addressing company law (a
reserved matter) and CORE Scotland addressing public spending that is
controlled by the Scottish Executive.
Is devolution delivering here? It’s certainly giving CORE Scotland
access to the political process to address Scottish issues. Is the
Executive responding? We’ll have to wait and see.
G8 week. Parliament is shut to the public. Except for ‘Measuring What
Matters’ the seminar the Centre for Human Ecology and the New Economic
Foundation have organised at the invitation of the Scottish Green
Party. We get past the ‘ring of steel’ brandishing passports and
utility bills (is this to convince us that we need identity cards?).
Great event, good mix of people from across the sectors including
Scottish Executive staff. The presentations emphasise the importance of
shifting public policy to focus on ‘well being’ – and putting aside the
fetish of economic growth. We hope that at least some of it feeds into
the indicator set for the Executive’s Scottish Sustainable Development
Strategy that is being developed over the summer.
A beautiful day for a walking tour of Edinburgh. No ghosts jump out at
us on the Corporate Watch G8 tour; but the security guards seem
a little edgy as we stand outside the slick modern office blocks and
dignified Georgian buildings that house much of Scotland plc – most
visitors here wear suits, not scruffy t-shirts saying ‘George Bush
& Sons: family butchers since 1989’.
Corporate Watch and friends have put together an impressive analysis of
the connections – public and less public – between the international
political, business and military elites that are represented by many
organisations inside Edinburgh’s anonymous offices. They give a harsh
indictment of globalisation and the commercial opportunities that it
offers for Scottish companies who participate in the rush for low
prices and damn the consequences for employees, local communities and
the environment.
Corporate Watch have an explicitly anti-corporate agenda. I don’t think
it’s quite that simple. But I’m glad they exist, and I’m glad they
reminded me of what goes on behind the Corporate Responsibility
Reports, FTSE4Good Index and so on.
African debt relief was of course a key theme of the G8 summit. Part of
the price that Bob Geldof’s pal Tony Blair is demanding from African
countries in exchange is the privatisation of their water services.
Privatisation is claimed to bring in the private investment needed for
essential infrastructure projects that otherwise wouldn’t happen. If
that’s truly the case, perhaps I could be persuaded.
But the evidence is that water privatisation in Africa means the
public sector is left holding the risk, while the (foreign) private
sector reap the profit – and quality does not improve, prices go up and
the poor remain marginalised.
As I stood outside the Scottish offices of a major engineering
consultancy set to reap significant profits from African debt relief, I
wondered if this was what the thousands on the Make Poverty History
march had in mind. A long way from the devolution question perhaps, but
whatever devolution does for us at ‘home’ it will have failed if the
Scottish Executive’s most visible international activity remains
uncritical trade promotion, and our ambitions to engage in solidarity
with the poor and dispossessed overseas are thwarted.
Links:
View is a quarterly policy journal showcasing thinking from
Scottish civil society. It is led by the voluntary sector, and edited
and published by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
(SVCO).
|
