 That concludes decision time. We are now moving to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly. Members' business debate on motion number 14804 in the name of Kevin Stewart and Marshall Square. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. We invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request of sweet buttons now or as soon as possible. I invite Kevin Stewart to open the debate. Seven minutes please, Mr Stewart. First of all, I would like to thank colleagues who signed my motion for allowing us to have this member's debate on Marshall Square today. I would also like to welcome reject Marshall Square development campaigners to the public gallery this evening. I think that it would be fair to say that almost every Aberdonian was pleased to hear that the former council headquarters St Nicholas's house was to be demolished. It was regarded as a monstrosity and I saw a blot on the landscape. Many hoped that its demise would lead to a sensitive development of the site and the construction of a city square to complement the iconic Marshall College and the historic province scheme's house, which has been hidden from view for decades. Alas, that was not to be. The Labour-led council has pushed on with a scheme that is about as popular as a visit by King Herod to the Bethlehem nursery. David Hurt, a contributor to the reject Marshall Square development Facebook site, talks for many when he says, When the old St Nicholas's house was demolished, we could finally see Proviskeen's house and Marshall College and all their glory. The people of Aberdeen are crying out for this to be an open space, a civic square, but those who are meant to represent them are not listening. He goes on. Why could this be? What financial millstone have these councillors draped around the people who live in Aberdeen, who work in Aberdeen and are proud of Aberdeen? Fellow objector, David McLeod, said that the scheme is an architectural disaster, perpetuating its predecessor and imposing a financial burden on council taxpayers for many years to come. Many feel that the planning process was flawed, that the full impact of the scheme did not become apparent until 3D imagery of the development was produced by pinnacle visualisations, and it would be fair to say that folk were extremely disappointed that the Scottish Government did not call in the application. However, I do not want to concentrate on the planning aspects of this today, but instead I want to focus on the perceived lack of openness and transparency of the financial deal that Aberdeen City Council has entered into with Muse and Aviva. The reject martial square development campaign group has been assiduous in trying to get to the truth about the deal, and Mr Bill Skidmore has been at the forefront of those investigations. In a freedom of information letter to the council, Mr Skidmore asked for a copy of the business plan for the scheme and received a reply from the council that said, There is no business plan at this time, and yet, according to the campaigners, in the worst case scenario, Aberdeen taxpayers will be underwriting the risk of underoccupancy of the development by guaranteeing £175 million to Aviva shareholders over 35 years. It has been said by a great number of folk that it is somewhat ironic that Aberdeen City Council are willing to take on a risk that a multinational insurance company is not prepared to underwrite. In recent days, campaigners have managed to acquire two pages of the summary of the bids for the martial square development, and I will hand a copy of those pages to the minister after the debate this evening. I will also be sending those documents to Audit Scotland for their perusal. Yesterday, Mr Skidmore wrote to all Aberdeen City Councillors about the content of those documents. In his letter, he says, I got the impression when reading the summary bid information that the author was trying to steer councillors away from news. Too many unquantifiable risks, the need for a full life costing, a risk fund and a sinking fund to limit the damage of unquantifiable void periods over the full life of the lease. Instead, councillors were taken in by the prospect of £2.6 million income from the property, or nearly £100 million over the 35-year lease period, for a fully-led scheme. This is undeniably a bad investment decision, he said, and one that represents worst value for the city when compared with the other bid proposals. Of course, all of those grand plans, schemes and strategies were drawn up at a time when the oil price was high, when Aberdeen was booming and when property was at a premium. Sadly, the outlook has changed, but has Aberdeen City Council's Labour-led administration changed its business plan to manage the new risks that have appeared over the horizon? No, because as we've already established, they don't have a business plan. No business plan, but the council is required to upkeep, manage and maintain the building according to the summary bid information. The document says that those costs can generally be recovered from tenants, but what if there are only a few tenants? The document goes on to point out a number of other pitfalls, which, unfortunately, I don't have time to go over today, but hopefully they will be poured. I'll certainly give way. I would like to commend the member for achieving his debate, but I can't stay for full debate. I'm very struck by what you've said and what the group has put forward in their documents. I've read of strong parallels with things that have gone wrong in our Gylan but in my own area. I wonder if the member would also reflect and the minister would reflect on the need for greater supervision of local authorities, or at Scotland to say the least doesn't appear to be well-equipped to deal with this type of lack of democracy. I agree with Mr Russell on that point, and I know that he has been working assiduously in trying to deal with some of the problems in our Gylan but, and there are certainly similarities between the two situations. As I was saying, I hope that the documents that I'm going to provide to the minister and Audit Scotland will be poured over and that they will look very carefully at them. I'll leave the final words tonight to Kathleen Patterson, whose words reflect the feelings of a great many Aberdonians. She says, the heart of the beautiful city of Aberdeen is being gradually murdered with every brick that is laid in this awful development. How can the councillors sit at their desk listening to the work going on and the knowledge that they are imposing something horrendous on their town? Something that will more than likely cost its taxpayers dearly and which, given the current and predicted economic climate of the north-east, will surely stand half empty for years to come. She says, open your eyes and ears Aberdeen Council, admit mistakes were made and rethink this project with the help of all those concerned, bewildered, angry and heartbroken citizens of your time. Thank you so much. I now move to open debate. I call on Lewis MacDonald to be followed by Mark MacDonald. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome this debate, congratulate Kevin Stewart on bringing it, and I welcome the desire of all concerned to support regeneration of the city centre of Aberdeen. Marshall Square has its origins in the decision taken by a previous administration to relocate Aberdeen City Council's headquarters from St Nicholas's house to Marshall College. That was a large-scale and ambitious proposal. That divided opinion. That indeed was the financial millstone that left the city council substantially in debt. Leasing Marshall College from Aberdeen University entailed a debt of £60 million. The demolition of St Nicholas's house has cost several million more. I'd be delighted to. Mark MacDonald. I recall from my time as a member of that administration Lewis MacDonald and his colleagues saying that the Marshall College project would cost the council over £80 million. It cost the council less than £60 million. Surely he welcomes the fact that it was brought in so heavily under the budget that he assumed it would cost. That's a remarkable contribution. Mr Stewart has just talked about the financial millstone that has led to the Marshall Square development. Mr MacDonald wants to boast that the financial millstone is a little lighter than it originally looked as if it was going to be. I will in a moment, I'm sure, but let me make some progress. Mr Stewart will recall that he was convener of finance on the city council at a key point in that process. He urged fellow councillors not to forget the multimillion-pound asset that is St Nicholas's house. The value of that asset could fund the costs of Marshall College. That is, of course, precisely what is happening now. Despite the controversy, no party or group on the council has brought forward proposals to leave the site of St Nicholas's house undeveloped, because doing that would simply not pay the bills. After some debate, the city council chose to demolish St Nicholas's house and enable new development. As we have heard, it has now sold the site to a pension fund on a leaseback arrangement with the right to buy it all back at a nominal price after 35 years. That is clearly a better deal for city taxpayers than the long lease of Marshall College, which generates debt rather than income. However, as the campaigners have rightly argued, it comes with a degree of risk. The lease of Marshall College is an extremely good deal, over a 175-year period. Beyond that, the foresight of the previous administration saved an iconic Aberdeen building. Can I ask Mr MacDonald if he thinks that the buildings that are currently going up will be classed by any Aberdonians as being iconic? I certainly think that it will be a lot easier for Aberdeen City Council to recover value from the Marshall Square development than from Marshall College, which is clearly simply a drain on revenues for the council. £60 million of debt, as Mark McDonald has said, will take quite a lot of income in order to pay off. However, there is a degree of risk, and that has rightly been said. A report from Accountants EYES commented on the remarkable resilience of the Aberdeen economy over the last year in the face of a low oil price and large-scale redundancies. We must hope that that continues. However, there is, of course, a risk that that resilience will fail to prevent recession, and there is consequently a risk only there that the council's income from Marshall Square will fall short of the annual rent that is committed to pay under the leaseback arrangements. It is worth noting in that context last week's report from the Parliament's Local Government and Regeneration Committee, chaired by Kevin Stewart, which said that local councils should work with pension funds to secure infrastructure investment. Mr Stewart and his colleagues urged councils to take a less cautious approach. They said that without some degree of risk taking, innovation will not happen. Well, that is quite right. Audit Scotland has looked at the innovative financing arrangements for Marshall Square. They concluded that the risks had been well understood and managed, and they advised the council to continue to manage its financial exposure to mitigate those risks accordingly. I hope that the council will heed that advice, but I also hope that it will heed the advice of Mr Stewart's committee not to be unduly risk averse. Aberdeen City Council can clearly demonstrate a proactive approach to the wider risks to the regional economy. Its proposals for a city region deal, which are with ministers, have cross-party support. Now, Opportunity North East is bringing together public and private sector partners to strengthen and diversify the regional economy with generous support among others from Surrey and Wood. They recognise that investing so that the local economy continues to grow is the best way to ensure that Marshall Square does pay for Marshall College rather than simply adding to the existing debt. I commend the campaigners who are here today for asking difficult questions. The project that they did not want, as they will know, is now well under way. I suspect that, in spite of what we have heard so far, they will not hear any actual proposals this evening that would change that. I hope that they will nonetheless maintain their commitment to our living changing city. I hope that they and all of us will continue to strive for Aberdeen's future success. I want to pay tribute to the campaigners, in particular to my constituent, Bill Skidmore, who has sent a great deal of information to MSPs in advance of this evening's debate. It is certainly made for some interesting reading. I can assure them of that. My colleague Kevin Stewart has very helpfully focused on the issues around the business plan or lack thereof and the questions that arise off the back of that. I want to look at some of the wider impacts and risks that I think that this development poses, but I cannot allow some of the things that Lewis MacDonald said to go unchecked and unchallenged. First of all, I think that most people would accept and agree that the redevelopment of Marshall College has been a fantastic benefit to the city of Aberdeen. If Lewis MacDonald's view is that any capital expenditure should be viewed as a millstone or a risk, then it is a wonder that anything ever gets developed in the city of Aberdeen, such as new school buildings, for example, at tens of millions of pounds. If Lewis MacDonald believes that we shouldn't be making tens of million pounds of investment because of the potential debt that arises now, I have more to come to yet. Then Lewis MacDonald turns around and says that the local government committee has spoken about using pension funds for infrastructure investment. It is something that I have spoken about as well, particularly public pension funds and especially public pension funds. The idea that pension funds who invest then recoup their word over time rather than simply transferring the burden of risk for that investment on to the local authority itself, which is what is happening in those circumstances. Then Lewis MacDonald says that the local government committee has said that councils should not be overly risk averse. There is a fundamental difference between not being risk averse and being essentially blind or ignorant of risk. That appears to be a dividing line that the Labour-led administration in Aberdeen has fallen off of quite spectacularly. Lewis MacDonald? I am grateful to Mr MacDonald. Clearly Audit Scotland has not regarded the handling of this as either blind or ignorant, but if Mr MacDonald is suggesting that in some way Aberdeen City Council should cease to seek an income from Marshall Square, can he tell us how else he would have Aberdeen City Council pay off the debt accrued at Marshall College? One of the things that Aberdeen City Council ought to have done first and foremost is to have had a much more open and transparent process from the beginning, looking at the views of Aberdonians around the options that they wanted to see being developed and then examined how those could have been delivered. I am pretty sure that what is currently being developed would not have been top of any of the considerations. One of the other things that Aberdeen City Council did erroneously was to vote against the wishes of the group that I was a member of to demolish the building itself and incur the costs around the demolition of St Nicholas's house to the council with no guarantee of what would come after, therefore taking an upfront cost with no guarantee of future income. That was another example of carelessness in the face of risk assessment. I want to look at some of the wider issues here in terms of wider impact and risk, because Union Street, the flagship street in the city of Aberdeen at the moment, needs support, it needs investment, it needs a specific strategic approach. What I fail to see at the moment coming forward is any sign of such a strategic approach. Indeed, it seems to be that development and proposed development in and around the city centre is designed almost to prevent the recovery of Union Street, rather than to assist the recovery of Union Street. In Marshall Square will be another part of that problem in relation to Union Street, because that is a financial impact as well. The opportunities are coming to the council, and Lewis MacDonald, as he is now so keen on Aberdeen City Council not being risk averse, I am sure will join with the calls that have been made by my colleague councillor Jackie Dunbar for Aberdeen City Council to look to use the new powers that are being given to it in relation to business rates, to look at a targeted approach to business rate reduction on Union Street to encourage independent retailers on to Union Street. That should be coupled as well, I believe, with a view of looking at how the upper levels of Union Street buildings could be utilised better, for example conversion to flats and other properties, which would enable, first of all, provision of accommodation in the centre of Aberdeen, but also reduce the space of buildings that are being let to retailers and enable those smaller independent retailers who exist in areas such as Rose Street and Thistle Street, for example, to perhaps be encouraged on to Union Street with greater exposure and greater football. That is the kind of approach that we want to be seen being taken in our city centre, not what is being done at Marshall Square at the moment, which is an opportunity only, it seems, for chain retailers who do not have a local presence to come in, set up shop in Aberdeen and potentially divert business away from some of the smaller independent retailers rather than an opportunity to enhance and promote them. That, for me, is one of the great shames about this. I am pleased that Kevin Stewart has secured this debate, because it allows us to discuss some very real concerns about the Marshall Square development and about the planning system in Scotland today, particularly about public engagement in the process when a major development proposal is being considered. I will focus on that. At this point, I should declare that my husband is a committee member of Aberdeen Civic Society, but neither he nor I had any direct input into consideration of the proposals to develop Marshall Square in Aberdeen. I would also like to acknowledge the very detailed briefing material that was sent in by the reject Marshall Square development campaign group ahead of the debate, most of which, unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with today. However, that raised many issues with the process that was followed by the city council, including the financial process. Later, it has been thoroughly investigated by Audit Scotland, however, and I think that at this stage we must accept that financial due process was, in fact, followed by the council. Marshall Square is a site of major importance to people in Aberdeen and far beyond, neighbouring, as it does, two of the city's most historic buildings—Marshall College and Provis Keane's house—with any development there having a major impact on their setting. With the removal of St Nicholas's house widely seen as a blight on the landscape of the city centre, there was an opportunity to do something iconic with the space that was opened up and to develop the site in a way that is sympathetic to Provis Keane's house with showcases and compliments of Marshall College, giving space and attracting people to the area. The development that has been approved and is now under construction has shocked many Aberdonians by its sheer size, scale and density, already obliterating the imposing granite façade of Marshall College. At a recent summit, it held to discuss the effects of the downturn in the oil industry on the economic future of the north-east and the steps that are required to secure it going forward. It was stated that Aberdeen needs an attraction that not only brings visitors to the city but also shows people from other parts of the world with the skills that we need to attract. Aberdeen is a great place to live and offers an excellent quality of life, but there is widespread feeling across the city's communities that the opportunity to develop an iconic attraction has been lost with Marshall Square as it was just a few years back when proposals to develop Union Terrace gardens were rejected by the council. That was before they reached the planning stage, but that would have been a catalyst to the things that Mark McDonald was mentioning about Union Street. Public opposition to the Marshall Square development has been intense, with residents who have never before been active taking to the streets with placards and loud-halers to protest against it. Even at this late stage, I am asking the Government to call in the planning application, seeking a moratorium on building until the public engagement exercise can be rerun. That is because they feel that the public's voice has not been listened to as part of the planning process, leaving them feeling totally disenfranchised from it. The Marshall Square development has exposed some fundamental problems with our current planning system. The public does not understand the process. When they turn out in large numbers at pre-application hearings and other public consultation events, as they did in the case of Marshall Square, they think that they have registered their objections. Unaware that, to be valid, those objections have also to be formally submitted to the planning authority within the time allowed. In this case, the many hundreds of objections expressed resulted in only 44 formal submissions on the planning application, and, understandably, people are outraged that their views were therefore not considered by the council. In my opinion, this simply is not good enough in 21st century Scotland when we are encouraging community involvement in all aspects of life. When important major developments like this are at issue, the process really needs to be changed to enhance community input. I urge the minister to consider this as a necessary and an urgent improvement to the planning system that we have currently in place. Alison McInnes, to be followed by Graham Dey. Let me first look and congratulate Kevin Stewart for securing this important debate. I was happy to support his motion. I have received many emails and letters from my constituents on the Marshall Square development, and all of them are against the scheme. Not one person wrote to me asking me to publicly support it, and I completely understand their concerns. I too pay tribute to the tenacity and the determination of the campaigners. In my opinion, the scheme is utterly uninspiring and lacks any vision. It does nothing to improve the area aesthetically. It detracts and overshadows an iconic building, and it is a missed opportunity to do something distinctive and reflective of the architectural heritage of the north-east. A series of planning decisions have left the city centre fragmented, and there was a chance to use this site to create a civic heart that the citizens could be proud of. I am not saying that Aberdeen should not have a new development, and I am not saying that the city should remain as it is. What I am saying is that this development should have been much more ambitious. How many more shopping walls does the city need? The debate is not about aesthetics, and truth be told, but it is about the financial responsibility of the city council in approving the bid by news. I am very much aware that the building works have already started, but it is important to reflect on the mess and what has got us here. We have already heard from Kevin Stewart about the lack of business plans. We have also heard about the financial risks involved in the deal that Aberdeen City Council has made with the developers, and we have heard about the secrecy surrounding the deal. We have to reflect on the fact that the Labour-led administration has regularly showed contempt for the city's resident that the design going ahead was never subject to a proper public consultation. Labour's finance convener sought to either mislead the public or was simply incompetent when he claimed that cancelling the scheme would cost £100 million in fees. Those are important matters that deserve our attention. Mews have previously stated that they hope that a big name oil company will lease off of space in the new development. Unfortunately, the last year or so has shown us in the north-east how volatile the oil and gas sector is, how quickly opportunities fade, and how too much reliance on a single sector can damage other areas of the economy. Does the member also agree that it is unlikely, given the developments at, for example, Prime 4 and the developments at ABZ by the airport, that oil companies are going to seek city centre locations when there are other locations that will be located more advantageously for the airport and the western peripheral route that will be available? Mark McDonald made an absolutely fair point on that. Employment, retail and hospitality sectors have all been impacted. The City Council, above many others, understands the peaks and troughs of the oil industry and they know that we have to deal with that. The reality is that, just now, most oil and gas companies are looking to cut down on staff and on their space. The reality is that Aberdeen City Council and Mews agree on this deal when the city was in a better financial situation than it is now, but Aberdeen City Council should have had a robust business plan for the project and they should be able to show proof that they have contingency plans. They should be able to assure everyone that this new building will have a purpose and will be financially viable, even in the toughest of times, and yet they cannot. Those assurances are currently missing. Accusing those who are raising these valid concerns of playing politics is disgraceful. I support Kevin Stewart's motion. Graham Day, to be followed by Richard Baker. I think that there are others who have contributed already. I rise to speak as much as an Abaddonian is an MSP. Even though I have lived longer in the constituency that I represent here in Parliament than I did in the Granite City, it will, in many respects, always be home. It pains me to say this. Aberdeen City Centre has been destroyed by the planning decisions of successive local government administrations, with Union Street a deathly pale imitation of what it once was and indeed ought to be. Along came a wee glimmer of hope in the shape of the demolition of the blight that was in Nicholas House. A chance to create an open space, a chance to let Proviskeen's house breathe, an opportunity, more than anything, to allow Abaddonians and visitors alike to view Marshall College and Greyfriars Kirk in all their glory. I managed fleetingly to avail myself of that opportunity when I was home in the summer. I have driven up Upper Kirkgate many times over many years. For the first time ever I travelled those yards able to gaze upon the magnificence of the Marshall College. It was a genuine wow moment. A magnificent piece of granite architecture, at long last freed of obstruction, enabled to be viewed as it ought to be viewed. But not for long, of course, work was already under way to construct Marshall Square, so let's consider what Marshall Square is offering. 173,500 feet of grade A office accommodation and associated car spaces, like there's no shortage of available office space to be found within the granite city. 26,500 square feet of retail and restaurant space will forgive me, but aren't the St Nicholas and Bonacord centres located within a couple of hundred yards of this spot offering just that? Isn't it the case that we already have the Union Square development enticing shoppers away from the retail heart of the city? A 126-room hotel? I thought that Aberdeen was pretty well served in that regard. I think that over recent months it's seen a 30 per cent under-occupancy rate. But in terms of the shopping element, don't just listen to we the politicians, let's consider the views expressed by Mary Portas, who I'm told is an expert in town centre retail. As she tweeted on a recent visit to the city, Aberdeen council are letting a shopping building Marshall Square, while Union Street is so like dying, what? Or a beautiful granite stone building on Union Street being left while money pumped into a new bill by Aberdeen council, madness. To be fair, the development does allow for 14,500 square feet of civic space in front of the historic Proviskeets house. Only whilst you will be able to gaze on the splendour of that particular construct, you won't be able to see Marshall College because, barring a narrow passageway, it will be completely blocked out by some of the buildings hosting these retail, restaurant and hotel facilities. But it's the missed opportunity represented here that's so sad. The chance to say enough is enough to these sorts of developments to turn the spotlight on the beautiful buildings the city already has and in retail terms concentrate on reviving Union Street. Then of course we have the financial aspect to the deal with Aviva Investors and Muse Development Ltd, whereby Aberdeen taxpayers are underwriting the risk of under-occupancy of the development by guaranteeing sharehold as £175 million over 35 years. That financial arrangement, I think, creates a potentially significant problem for the council beyond just the threat of having to fund an underutilised Marshall Square. Doesn't this arrangement potentially place councils in a rather difficult position when it comes to deciding upon future planning applications if Marshall Square is under-occupied? Won't it potentially weigh them open to accusations if they turn their applications for significant-size city centre, retail, restaurant or office developments that they are doing so in order to protect Marshall Square and the council's financial exposure there? Perfectly valid and justified decisions could be called into question on these grounds. Legal challenges could be mounted claiming that councillors may have been predisposed to rejecting such applications because of the possible implications for council budgets if they grant it. If that project isn't a rip-roaring success, it could create all kinds of difficulties for future council administrations over the coming decades. That all comes down for me to one simple question. Can Marshall Square be justified on any grounds? The answer, I and many others believe, is no. No, Colin. Richard Baker, after which we will move towards his speech to the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also begin by congratulating Kevin Stewart on securing this debate because the future of Aberdeen city centre is an extremely important issue and rightly excites strong opinions, including from the Marshall Square campaign group who we welcomed to Parliament this evening. People care greatly about the city centre. They're concerned about its current state, as we've heard from a number of members. They know its improvement is vital for our local economy, particularly its greatly challenging times for oil and gas industry. The Marshall Square plans have been, as we've heard, a centre of very heated debate. As before that were the plans for Union Terrace gardens. As someone who supported the exciting plans that have been previously for a new contemporary art centre to be paced in the gardens, I'm disappointed that ultimately they did not go ahead. But amidst of all this debate on Marshall Square as well and much disagreement, there is a consensus that our city centre must change and must be improved. I know Aberdeen city council is absolutely committed to making that change happen. The Marshall Square plans are part of that. But, of course, on an even wider scale, there's ongoing work on the city centre master plan, the strategic approach to which the administration is committed. And whatever views there may be on the plans for Marshall Square, I think we should all be able to agree that the new development will be a significant improvement on St Nicholas's house, which had stood in that site for so many years and, as Lynette Milne said, was not a building that had been widely regarded or cherished by the residents of Aberdeen, Mr Stewart. I thank the member for giving way. It's interesting to hear him now come out in favour of the Marshall Square development because he wouldn't do so in the run-up to the general election where he was a candidate. But I would disagree with Mr Baker and I would ask him for the proof of where he thinks folk think that the new development will be better than the St Nicholas's house situation. Because what I've heard from residents of the city is what we are doing is replacing one ugly skyscraper with four ugly skyscrapers. The great majority of people I speak to in Aberdeen, no-one's expressed to me the idea that this will be detrimental compared to St Nicholas's house. I actually expect that even some of the speakers in this debate who've come with a view not in favour of Marshall Square hold the opinion that Mr Stewart's just expressed. We know that there are people who do not support those plans. Of course I accept that. There are other people who want to see this kind of environment for retail and leisure in the city centre, which Marshall Square will provide. Union Square has already proved highly popular. Indeed, it has plans to expand. I haven't got time, Christian. I do apologise. There is an important element to new finances that will accrue to the council through the Marshall Square project. Given that our city council receives significantly lower funding than other local authorities, that's got to be a key consideration for the administration as they seek to protect funding for services. While concerns have been raised tonight in the matter of the finances scheme, I point out to members that Audit Scotland report on the financial plans found that good practice had been followed. On the issue of a business plan, I understand that there was no business plan for the Marshall College scheme as well. Presiding Officer, the work on Marshall Square is proceeding but doubtless that wider debate on the future of Aberdeen city centre will continue because it is such an important issue for the future of the city. On that, we can all agree. I know that there is also broad agreement on the need for an Aberdeen city region deal. That's important, given that infrastructure investment is a key element of that deal, offering third opportunities to develop our city centre. It's good that the city region deal bid offers that opportunity for transformation of the city and that it's supported across parties, across Governments and, of course, by the two councils as well. Aberdeen city centre can be the attractive and vibrant place we all want it to be, helping to bring more people to visit, work and live in Aberdeen and enjoy all our great city has to offer. That's the goal that should not only lie at the heart of the work of our council but should be a common endeavour for all of us who represent the city. I hope that the minister will confirm his support for that vital work at the end of this evening's debate. I now move the closing speech from the minister. Mark will be agi. Seven minutes are there by a minister, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is clearly an important issue, as we've seen from the debate here. I say that not just as local government minister but I would say it to the member as one city centre MSP to another. The key questions that are triggered here of heritage of finances, how to plan the best use of a short supply of space in a city centre are big questions and feelings will run deep. The evidence of that is clear from Aberdeen street protests, one led by the member leading the debate, participants in the thousands, even as Graham Day highlighted Mary Portis weighing in. We've seen a sustained campaign to influence local decisions and I'd just like to say in the spirit of recent Scottish politics where we are being willing to commend people's willingness to get involved with debates, regardless of which side we are there on. I would commend the willingness and energy shown by the citizens of Aberdeen who have become active citizens engaging on this. Whichever position you take, the determination is a thing to behold and we would as a society benefit if more people engaged so actively with local issues. I correct the minister because I didn't lead any of the protests. The protests have been led by the citizenry of Aberdeen and I think that shows the groundswell that there is. My substantive point though is, does the minister think that the community empowerment act can make a difference in allowing folks the opportunity to have their voices heard unlike this current situation where they have been ignored? I think that I was using the word lead in a purely physical sense based on a photo I had seen. Yes, I do think that the community empowerment act is really important here and that was actually what I was about to comment on. Some of the wider issues raised here before homing in on the specifics and the community empowerment agenda is all about tackling not just the inequalities of wealth and income that we have in this country but inequalities of power and influence. We have only, sadly, 22 per cent of people in Scotland feeling that they can influence local decisions and that has to be higher. There are a whole series of initiatives in community empowerment to try and get away from adversarialism and focus on positive suggestions and partnership working. We have participatory budgeting, which we are rolling out to get people directly involved in spending decisions. Perhaps crucially for this question, participatory planning issues such as charrettes, we have funded 31 of those since 2011, there are an intensive way of getting communities proactively involved at the start as Mark McDonald highlighted to provide that vision of what people want. In July we committed £300,000 more for 2015-16 and as ever we received more applications than we could fund but the appetite for this form of empowerment is very clear. The minister may be aware that a charrette was undertaken in my constituency in relation to the grand home estate and that charrette predated that process in relation to Marshal Square so the process of charrettes ought not to have been alien to the council when it was undertaking the Marshal Square project. I think that the member has made his point there. Clearly a charrette has been around and they represent one particular way of doing a very intense participative planning but the principles are good practice that can be deployed through all kinds of other methods in planning. We have to answer the point of Nanette Millan, an independent panel reviewing the Scottish planning system at the request of the cabinet secretary and its membership includes Petra Beiberbach of PASS, formerly planning aid for Scotland and its identified community engagement as one of its key issues. The call for evidence closed on 1 December and the report is expected in May with any changes based on the recommendations to follow after that. All of that is the generality here but there is the specific. There is no doubt that this is a crucial issue to Aberdeen and it brings home that we shouldn't treat council elections lightly. Local authorities are responsible for vital services for emotive decisions and for £16.5 billion in gross expenditure every year. Local democracy matters and local democracy gives councils a mandate and a way of being held accountable for decisions not supported by their electorate just as we are in this chamber. Local democracy matters. Alison McInnes in her contribution said that only 44 submissions came in against the planning but many hundreds were out in protest. The council ignored democracy. There is clearly a debate on going. People from all sides are having their say and we will have all kinds of opportunities through the electoral and democratic processes to have their say as well. As a Government believes in local decision making, we intervene in extreme cases and have only powers to direct in specific circumstances. We have no power to generally direct local authorities and, frankly, long may that remain so. Any power we have goes through the statutes passed in this Parliament and in limited cases. In that respect, Martial Square lies beyond any reach of Scottish ministers at this point. Planning permission has formally been granted by the local authority so it cannot be recalled by ministers and we must act in respect of that decision. Nor is there any evidence that the council has failed in a statutory duty under the 1973 act, which could trigger powers as well. Audit Scotland has concluded that relevant transactions have been appropriately accounted for in its 2014-15 annual audit of Aberdeen City. Appropriate processes have been followed in a financial sense. The Scottish Government's power to direct following a recommendation by the Accounts Commission therefore will not be engaged on grounds of best value. Although there have been criticisms of Audit Scotland this evening, they are our established independent body and the Scottish Government must have regard to them and indeed the powers are only triggered when through their work with the Accounts Commission they would recommend something. I would return to where I started on this. Audit Scotland did look at the finances but this is a political decision. There are issues that are much wider than the finances, the opportunity cost, the other uses of the square, the advisability of investing in one project over another. All of those are within the scope of reasonable local political debate and it would be understandable for people to come to different conclusions about the advisability of the plan just as it is within the scope to view administrations positively or negatively. Planning permission was passed in a close vote of councillors. The Muse deal was passed in a close vote of councillors. This has been an issue of controversy and I expect that controversy to continue. The member has brought that debate here and is to be commended for acting on his views as a local representative and giving that debate more space to take place. This Government is subject to constant attacks from parties over there and indeed over there about centralisation and being called on to intervene in local decisions on everything from planning to social care. The minister believes in local democracy but let me restate to conclude clearly what my predecessor said to Kevin Stewart last year. That is that our actions do not constitute giving approval to the proposal or agreeing with decisions taken by the council. We are merely acknowledging that it is in the council's area of responsibility and just as we want to see empowered communities we also want to see responsive democracies. The first without the second will only lead to cynicism and disengagement. It is only when all levels of government are truly realising the Christy principles of prevention, performance, people and especially partnership and participation that we will have flourishing village towns, city centres and everyone able to look with pride on the place that they call home.