Group 3 is on developments of national significance. Amendment 16, in the name of Maureen Watt, is the only amendment in the group.

Although there was general agreement that the existing system of dealing with major projects by means of a private act of the Scottish Parliament is not a satisfactory way of doing things, there is concern among those who have followed the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill that so little involvement of the Parliament is expected as a result of the bill.

With Amendment 16, I am not trying to reintroduce the arguments that were advanced by Donald Gorrie at stage 2. If all the front-loading of the process of major projects takes place and all interested parties are involved from the start, that will be welcome. However, there is concern that although local members might be able to have a say, Parliament as a body will not have a say on major strategic developments. That is remiss. Shortly after the announcement of a project, time should be given for elected members to give their views so that ministers know at the outset the views of members and their constituents.

I offer an example that looks back to what happened earlier today. If proposals were developed for a new Forth crossing, from whichever party, surely the Government of the day should lead an early debate on the subject—for example, on whether the crossing should be a bridge or a tunnel. That debate should not be left to an individual member to introduce; the Government should lead the debate so that members may have a say on the project.

I move amendment 16.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Maureen Watt's Amendment 16. Section 13 deals with developments of national significance and provides that formal approval of any ministerial order relating to such a significant development will be required from the Parliament as a final stage in the process. Amendment 16 would provide for preliminary as well as final consideration by Parliament of such a significant development.

I have some sympathy with the amendment because of a point that was raised in evidence by those who participated under the present private bill procedure, who said that by the time the draft private bill came to Parliament, the principle of the project had in effect been approved by the Scottish Executive since such projects invariably depend on a high level of public funding before they can even get to first base. As the objectors saw it, parliamentary consideration was confined to the details and not the principle and the result was a foregone conclusion. That is an unfortunate, if realistic, perception. For that reason, there is merit in the principle behind amendment 16.

Whether a statutory requirement for preliminary consideration by Parliament needs to be incorporated in the bill depends in part on how the Executive intends Parliament to debate the national planning framework and developments of national significance that are within that framework, some of which are projects that fall within the scope of the bill. If we can be satisfied that there is adequate scope for such a preliminary debate in Parliament, initiated by the Executive in its own time, amendment 16 is probably unnecessary. However, if that is not the case—we await the Minister's response with interest—the amendment has considerable merit and is worthy of our support.

I, too, have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment 16. It is important that we have some form of parliamentary scrutiny and debate on the general principles of such proposals before all the work of inquiries and everything else gets under way.

At the moment, we risk creating a procedure that involves much less parliamentary scrutiny than currently exists. We risk creating a procedure whereby the only parliamentary scrutiny will be a final motion at the end of the process, when there will be one three-minute speech for and one three-minute speech against.

Amendment 16 is worth while. Unlike David McLetchie, I think that it is important to include the provision in the bill, because regardless of the current Minister's good will and good intentions, we must have something that is binding on his successors.

In adding my support for Maureen Watt's Amendment 16, I declare an interest as I was previously the convener of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee.

Far be it from me to say that the Parliament needs more involvement than the bill provides, given the complaints of all the committee members in light of the fact that the process took almost three years and required us to go through a pile of evidence that was almost 3ft high. However, there is an important stage missing from the procedure that is outlined in the bill and I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the comments that have been made by members throughout the chamber.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that Parliament gets to consider a proposal at a preliminary stage to decide in principle whether we support it before it proceeds further. The process that is outlined in the bill is lacking in parliamentary scrutiny. I am not arguing for one minute that we should go back to the old system—heaven forfend—but I think that there is something missing. I urge the minister to listen carefully, reflect on what has been said and respond positively to Maureen Watt's amendment.

I take the issue seriously. It reflects a legitimate point of interest that has been raised, in different forms but in the same manner, at committee proceedings and elsewhere.

First, on the point on which David McLetchie and Tricia Marwick have just reflected, I bow to the superior knowledge of my colleague Johann Lamont, who was responsible for the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. Not only will we have a full parliamentary debate on these matters before the parliamentary process begins, but the committees will be heavily involved in taking them forward and scrutinising them to the utmost extreme. It is important to reflect on Parliament's engagement in the process.

Will the Minister give way?

In a minute.

I assure Chris Ballance that it is not the case that there would be a three-minute speech for and a three-minute speech against. Ministers would be held accountable for every part of the proposal and ministers would be questioned on every part of it in detailed evidence sessions. I hope that that provides the assurance that he seeks.

Does not the Minister accept that the debate on the planning strategy will be a debate on a large number—perhaps 50 or 60—of planning issues? What is required is detailed examination of a specific transport issue, but that will not happen in a general debate on the overall planning strategy for Scotland.

That is why I made the point on the role of committees. The kind of scrutiny that the member describes is not provided by general parliamentary debates; the Parliament's bread-and-butter work is done in the committees. I strongly advocate and will always support the committees' right properly to scrutinise all such issues. I am sure that they will do so in the context of the national planning framework and will look into the detail behind it in relation to an individual committee's responsibilities.

I hope that Mr Ballance accepts that assurance. I do not accept that only the debate in Parliament would cover the wide range of projects; detailed scrutiny would take place in the committees.

As Maureen Watt knows, I stated in evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee:

"If the bill is enacted, transport proposals will continue to be subject to scrutiny, from the strategy documents, beginning with the strategic projects review, through to the infrastructure investment plan and culminating, for nationally significant projects, in the national planning framework."

Will the Minister give way?

I want to finish making this point.

I also said:

"Given the front-loading exercise and the significant top-line parliamentary scrutiny in the context of the national transport strategy"— and other aspects,

"it will simply not be necessary to have yet another process."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 3 October 2006; c 4048 and 4053.]

I wholly concur with Alasdair Morgan, who said in his submission on the bill to the Procedures Committee:

"the SNP is anxious that whatever procedure is introduced in the above bill is one which considerably reduces the delays"—

I think that that is Tricia Marwick's point—

"currently accompanying public transport projects, particularly in relation to rail.

In that respect I am not convinced that we do need two bites at the cherry in Parliament in respect of approving Executive action and I feel that approval of the final draft order is probably sufficient."

That just shows that the previous business manager and Chief Whip sometimes disagreed with the current business manager and chief whip on the issue—I will probably get a hard slap for it, too.

Will the Minister confirm that the national planning framework will be either wholly approved or wholly rejected by members after the parliamentary debate and that we will have no opportunity to lodge an Amendment that would delete part of the document? If that is the case, the detailed scrutiny that we want will not take place, because members will not be able to reject a particular aspect of the framework without rejecting the whole thing.

That argument would be fair if the debate represented the Parliament's only scrutiny of the Government of the day's national planning framework. However, as we have discussed ad nauseam in committee, it absolutely will not be the only scrutiny. I hope that Tricia Marwick reads the evidence on the matter, because we went over the issue a number of times. As I said to Chris Ballance, the debate is not the only process; a number of steps will be gone through. The front-loading exercise—I know that is dreadful jargon—will involve consultation and projects will be considered by communities and, I am sure, by many regional and Constituency members. In addition, there will be a political process, which will provide much opportunity for debate and full, active scrutiny before the Parliament debates the NPF.

I want to talk about fairness. The practical proposal in Amendment 16 is that the Parliament should by motion debate an individual project within three months of an application being made, which means that the Parliament could conduct a formal debate during an objection period. I hope that Maureen Watt will reflect on the significant problems that such an approach would give the Government. The Parliament might debate a project's merits before it had been subject to independent examination by a reporter or while an inquiry or hearing was going on—I am sure that that is not what Maureen Watt wants to achieve. What message would that send to the parties concerned? People would ask what was the point of pursuing the process if the Parliament was going to arrive at a decision without hearing the evidence or arguments. Amendment 16 is not consistent with the formal processes in relation to people's right to object.

On the basis of that point and wider points about the inevitable and proper parliamentary scrutiny of national transport plans and other plans, I ask Maureen Watt to withdraw amendment 16.

I do not recall it being suggested to the Local Government and Transport Committee that scrutiny of projects under the bill would be as strong as the Minister's comments today suggest that it will be. If such scrutiny is to take place, and given what my colleagues have said to other committees, I seek leave to withdraw Amendment 16.

Does any member object to Maureen Watt withdrawing Amendment 16?

Members:

Yes.

In that case, I must put the question. The question is, that Amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a Division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

We will proceed with the Division.

Division number 1

For: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watt, Ms Maureen, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Fox, Colin

The result of the Division is: For 5, Against 97, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.