Published: Wednesday, 12th August, 2009 3:27pm
MSP defends his position over coal plant plan
Comments (4) | 
Print | 
Email
I am surprised, given the correspondence between us, that Professor Tony Meehan, writing in the News, appears to be attempting to mislead readers in relation to the proposed Hunterston coal-fired power station.
Prof Meehan claims that I was 'notable by my absence' at the public meeting held on 27 July, although he does not seem to have considered the possibility I could have been on holiday or otherwise engaged. In fact, I did not attend because I was not invited and I understand, neither were Largs' councillors. Although Ms Clark gave her apologies, meaning she was presumably invited, I don't know why the MP was not there. I doubt being on maternity leave was the reason as the same week she was canvassing in Kilbirnie!
The professor alleges that I 'blindly adhere to the Scottish Government's programme of propaganda and misinformation regarding the development of Hunterston.' What propaganda is that then? Has any reader received any such propaganda?
Prof Meehan sees a conspiracy where there isn't one. For all his talk of 'democracy,' when he responded to my consultation he asked if the opinions of people in Fairlie could be 'weighted' against those of Cumbrae, Largs and West Kilbride in any analysis of responses. Clearly the concept of one person one vote escapes him.
As for points raised at the public meeting, some of these were answered in the recent communication I delivered to every house in Largs only last month, others I will provide News readers with next week.
The substantive issue to come out of the meeting and Mr Meehan's letter was about consultation and the alleged lack of it, prior to approval of the National Planning Framework 2 (NFP2) by the Scottish Parliament.
It is worth noting that while Lib Dem MSP Ross Finnie, on his bi-annual visit to Largs, opportunistically seemed to share the indignation of those who organised the public meeting, he voted for NFP2 in Parliament. His party's amendment to the framework was only to exclude a new nuclear power station at Hunterston, not a coal-fired power station. However, it is not the case that any decision has been made to approve an application by Ayrshire Power. The Scottish Government can only approve or reject an application once it has actually seen it. Even if approved, a huge number of conditions might be attached. So what of the supposed lack of consultation?
Consultation on NFP2 was carried out not just on a statutory basis but to include as diverse a range of organisations as possible. Leaflets went to libraries across Scotland, there were eight newsletters and an e-newsletter to 7,000 users of planning services, six regional seminars, and 283 formal responses were received.
The (all party) Local Government and Communities Committee in Holyrood made clear in its 77 page report that NFP2 is an evolving document subject to further scrutiny and acknowledges the Scottish Government's efforts to engage stakeholders and public through extensive consultation. Details of the Report, on the discussions and consultations carried out in terms of NFP2 can be viewed at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/lgc/reports/-09-05-00-vol1.htm
Here is the link to the NFP2: Consultations Responses (Discussion Draft)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/08/07154949/0
To suggest, as the professor does, that this process was undemocratic is simply untrue.Once plans have been submitted by APL, which is now likely to be at the end of October/beginning of November, there will be an opportunity for anyone to support or object to those proposals or aspects thereof.
Kenneth J Gibson MSP
