 O'r next item of business, which is the continuation of stage 3 proceedings of the planning Scotland Bill. Just to remind members that in dealing with the bill, the bill has amended at stage 2, the marshaled list, the correction slip for amendment 3 and the grouping of amendments. As this is a second day, we will ring the division bell and suspend proceedings for five minutes before the first vote of the day, the first division of the afternoon. That will be a 32nd vote. Thereafter, there will be a one-minute vote following the first vote on every debate. Every other vote will be 30 seconds. Yesterday, I tried to give members a rough idea of which were the long groups and got it specularily wrong. I had been asked by a member to indicate that I got it specularily wrong, so I am not going to do so today. However, I will indicate that we are likely to take a break following group 25, which might be around 4.30. We might take another break following group 32, but we will play that by ear and I will try to indicate to members in advance when that is about to happen. To refer to the martial list now, we will pick up at group 16, which is land value capture sharing. I call amendment 112, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 212 and 215. Graham Simpson, to move amendment 112. Thank you. It feels like I've never been away. I move amendment 112, in my name. This removes land value capture from the face of the bill. It was introduced into the bill by an amendment that I tabled at stage 2. Initially, the bill had no mechanism for capturing any land value uplift. It was a subject that the committee had a really close look at. I think there is general cross-party support for the concept. However, the amendment that I tabled has raised some concerns, some legal concerns. I have to be honest about that and just say that I don't think that there is a place for it in this bill. I think that there are problems with it. People like the Scottish Property Federation have called it premature. They welcome my amendment today, which removes the provision. Scottish land and estates point 2 is possible in compatibility with EHCR. That was also a point raised by the committee that I convened, the DPLR committee. Given the work that is going on by the Scottish Land Commission on this, this is not the place for it. I am happy to move that we remove this. On that basis, I will not be supporting Alex Rowley's amendment 2.1.2 and 2.1.5. I call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 2.1.2 and the other amendments. In moving 2.1.2 and 2.1.5, those amendments require ministers to lay the regulation to facilitate land value capture within 18 months of royal assent off the plan and bill. Legislation to facilitate land value capture off land value share has been usefully termed by the Scottish Land Commission as not a silver bullet that will solve all our current housing supply crisis. We need to adopt a much more proactive approach to public interest-led development across the board, enabling public bodies to take the lead in major development. However, land value share could play a key role in this. It is deeply disappointing to see that the Tories and the Government team up to remove one of the transformative amendments to the bill from stage 2. It should not have been beyond the Government to resolve the legal change required to make this possible. We are giving the Government an opportunity to cement their support for the principle of land value sharing and commit to providing the legislative framework to make it possible. On the timeframe, we approached the Government before the amendment deadline and stated that we were open to their comments and to extending the timeframe if they were willing to support this amendment. We do not accept that as an explanation for why they are refusing to accept the amendment. The Government has failed to make formal responses to the Land Commission's brilliant recent reports on land value sharing and failed to say whether it accepts its recommendations. Can you blame us for starting to question its commitment to it? I asked the First Minister about this. I do not know if Alex Rowley was in the chamber when that happened. She said that there would be a full response to the Land Commission's report after this bill is dealt with. That is what the First Minister has said. I am pretty sure that I heard the housing minister say in this chamber that he actually accepted all the recommendations, but he will be able to confirm that himself. Alex Rowley, we seem to have some coalition going on between the SNP and the Tories when it comes to trying to block any kind of radical proposal on land reform. I know who they speak for and it is now clear who they speak for. Can the minister stay on the official report that he will legislate on land value capture as soon as is reasonably possible? That is a fair question to put to the minister. Can he explain how he plans to make more publicly led development a reality? There would be huge benefits to both of those, despite what the Tories think. The minister, I hope, will answer that. The Scottish Land Commission has successfully convened that the land value sharing is not about negating all the benefits the private sector currently gets from development. It is about a publicly led approach being used to create additional value that can be used to create ambitious, attractive, sustainable and healthy places that, above all, are built to work for communities. Surely at the heart of the bill should be communities and should be people. Many of the issues that we have and will discuss this week, notably sufficiently housing for older people and disabled people, would be much more of a reality if we embrace publicly led development, where public bodies have more influence of the minimum standards of homes being built. It is this level of transformative change that is required to realise the vision that this Parliament has, not the limited provision put forward by the Government and accepted by the Tory party. I hope that both parties will consider supporting this amendment. Andy Wightman I welcome Graham Simpson in his new role as spokesperson for the First Minister. Ahead of stage 2 of the bill, I conducted a consultation on the proposal to enable local authorities to acquire land that has existing use value—a power that they had from 1947 until 1959—which would strip out a substantial part of the profit that accrues to landowners and developers from the uplift in land value. Developers such as Murray Estates, who are developing a large area in the west of Edinburgh, are a good example. Having secured planning consent, the company informed me in a meeting that they had with me that it would simply sell the land, poxting a very tidy profit through the granting of a public good planning consent. I know that the Government is interested in this concept, but it said that it had 18 months to bring forward proposals. Instead, it has kicked it into the long grass and missed the only legislative opportunity, possibly for some time, to introduce such a power. The power, as was envisaged—I had amended it myself at stage 2, which I did not press because Graham Simpson had got into the bill—would only apply in master plan consent areas. It was a very limited power, and we intentionally restricted that power to enable it to be experimental to an extent and to avoid any of the bigger problems that might apply if we applied it right across the piece. We were focusing that power on restricted areas, allowing councils to explore more plan-led, public-led development models that have provided so much success in countries such as Germany. We oppose the removal of section 54CA of the bill, and we vote against amendment 112. We will support Alex Rowley's amendment, however, thank you. As I have consistently made clear, we, as the Government, are interested in the concept of land value capture or sharing. We will explore how land value uplifts can be effectively captured to fund infrastructure. That is why the Government asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate the issue and why I welcomed the report that it published in May. However, I believe that the provisions added at stage 2 are premature and risk breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, I welcome Graham Simpson's amendment proposing to remove this section from the bill. While I recognise the intention behind Alex Rowley's proposals, I cannot support them. Changes to compulsory purchase should be done through primary legislation, and it is unrealistic to reform such a complex area of law in such a short timescale. The issue deserves careful examination and consultation, including how proposals would interact with other mechanisms such as planning agreements and the proposed infrastructure levy. We will therefore work with the Land Commission, the Scottish Futures Trust, local authorities and industry representatives to identify how local authorities can best use existing mechanisms to fund infrastructure and what support they may need to do so. We will also look at how new mechanisms such as the levy and land pooling might complement existing mechanisms and hence whether any changes are required to existing legislation and, crucially, how we can ensure that any changes are fully compliant with the ECHR. I refer members to some of the issues that are around about this, including the 1845 Land Clauses Consolidation Scotland act, which I am told is not going to be particularly easy to unpick to make sure that we get to ECHR compliance. What I have said constantly, and I will not move from this, is that if legislative change is needed, we will pursue that. That may take time, that may be in the next Parliament, but we will outline how we intend to move forward after the bill has passed, as has been said previously, and we will, of course, try to work with colleagues across the chamber because I think that, like Mr Simpson, there is cross-party support in those issues in the main. Thank you very much. I call on Graham Simpson to wind up on this group and to press a withdrawal. Amendment 112. Thank you. I urge the minister—he really needs to make a statement on this very soon after recess, once we have passed this bill. We need to get moving on this. There is cross-party support. It might look as though there is disagreement today. There isn't really. We all want to move on this. It is just a question of how we do it in legislation. I don't think that this is the appropriate place. This is a very complicated area. My view is that it actually needs a separate and entirely separate piece of legislation to bring it forward. I will press the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. This will be the first division of the day, however, so there will be a five-minute suspension. I will call all the members to the chamber and then we will vote. Thank you, colleagues. We will pick up where we were, which is a vote on amendment 112. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to, and members may cast their votes now. This will be a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 112, in the name of Graham Simpson, is yes, 88, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We will turn now to group 17 master plan consent areas. Amendment 13, in the name of Andy Whiteman, is grouped with amendments 125 and 126. Andy Whiteman, to move amendment 13 and to speak to the other amendments. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Master plan consent areas are one of the areas of the bill, which has been broadly welcomed, although the impact will remain to be seen. I want to first address my own amendment 13. Section 10, subsection 3 of the bill, introduces a new schedule 5A to the 97 act. Part 1 of the schedule is concerned with general rules about the content of any master plan consent area. Section 3 of part 1 lists those areas that may not be included in any such scheme, such as world heritage sites and marine protected areas. Our agreement to include such a list followed stage 1 scrutiny, and included in the list of those areas where one cannot have a master plan consent area, are national scenic areas, which is what my amendment refers to removing that. I do not agree that national scenic areas should be excluded by law from schemes, and my amendment 13 deletes NSAs from that list. It is the only designation that I think should be excluded. I am perfectly happy with all the rest. I want to explain why. National scenic areas cover large areas of Scotland, including settlements, where there is a need for more affordable housing. Those areas include large parts of Western Ross, Ascent, Sutherland, the whole of Harris, South Lewis, Contail, Lockshell and a quarter of the Cairngorms national park. As the minister is aware, SNH has got a consultative role when a development of more than five houses is proposed in a national scenic area, but it does not have a consultative role when any such proposal is specifically provided for in the local development plan. The minister will be aware of the recent controversy over affordable housing in North Skye. He will also be aware that circular 91987 contains the relevant rules in that regard. It is our view that master plan consent areas could play an important role in providing rural housing, and to exclude them by law from being available in national scenic areas is illogical when developments can already take place under existing planning provisions. In many areas, master plan consent areas have the potential to provide a more effective means of providing rural housing, and I have been told that by rural housing providers. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 13. Moving to the other amendments in the group, amendments 1 to 5 and 1 to 6 re-insert notification, calling and direction making powers that were removed at stage 2. Amendment 1 to 5 restates provisions that allow ministers to direct planning authorities to notify them, and those provisions were removed at stage 2. Amendment 1 to 6 reinstates ministerial powers to call in proposals for master plan consent areas and to modify them. Again, my amendment is at stage 2 to remove those powers, so we will vote against amendment 1 to 5 and 1 to 6. I understand that ministers see those powers as a parallel to those in place for ordinary planning applications. However, given that we wish to seek call in powers curtailed and in general we wish to limit the power of ministers of planning authorities, we will be opposing those two amendments. I move amendment 13. Thank you very much, and I call the minister to speak to amendment 1 to 5 and the other amendments. Master plan consent areas are a new way for planning authorities to take a proactive placemaking approach and provide consent. Mr Wightman has argued that they should be allowed in national scenic areas. At stage 2, I outlined how we have worked with the relevant agencies and agreed that it would be right to restrict MCAs in international and national designations. I still believe that that is a clear and appropriate approach. Mr Wightman suggested that MCAs could assist in repopulating NSAs in the islands. However, the island authorities have told us that they would not envisage bringing forward MCAs schemes for land in such areas. Therefore, I do not support amendment 13. My amendments 1 to 5 and 1 to 6 seek to reinstate provisions removed at stage 2, requiring planning authorities to notify ministers prior to finalising certain MCAs schemes and to give ministers associated call-in powers. Those are important safeguards. Members will have seen the key agencies groups letters highlighting that there is a direct read across to the equivalent mechanism for notification and calling of applications and to leave it out for master plan consent areas would create a significant gap. Removing those provisions removed the ability for ministers to consider calling-in schemes where there are unresolved objections from national agencies. Proposals that key agencies object to frequently also attract significant local interest with a public expectation that objections from a national agency will trigger a requirement for national-level scrutiny. I hope that members will support amendments 1 to 5 and 1 to 6 to ensure that crucial layer of scrutiny for cases that raises issues of national significance. If he wishes to add anything further to wind up. Yes, I am disappointed that the minister in his response to amendment 13. I just don't understand how, if you can build up to five houses in some of the most pressured areas of Scotland and Skyn, Contale and places, because they are in the local development plan, why master plan consent areas should not be available as well. Just because some local authorities have told the minister that they envisage no role for them, there is no reason to preclude any other local authority in any other part of Scotland either today or in five or ten years from being able to avail themselves of those powers. I am disappointed, but I accept how the vote will go. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now and it is a one-minute division on amendment 13. The result of the vote on amendment 13 in the name of Andy Whiteman is, yes, 33, no, 89. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We turn now to group 18, technical regulations. Can I call amendment 124 in the name of the minister, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings? Minister to move amendment 124. The group of amendments is mainly technical, removing duplication and tidying up wording. There is just one with a little more substance, which is amendment 155, section 20b of the bill in search of section 77a into the 1997 act. That enables ministers by regulations to make provision about the payment of compensation, where planning permission granted by a development order is withdrawn and a subsequent application for equivalent consent is refused or granted, subject to different conditions. In the stage 2 report on the bill, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that that power should be subject to the affirmative procedure because it deals with compensation and can apply or disapply provisions of primary legislation. I am happy to accept that recommendation and put forward this amendment. For the rest, I can provide more details if members have any questions, but I hope that those technical changes can be supported. Thank you, minister, and no other member wishes to comment on the section that goes straight to the vote. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 125, minister, to move? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a division and this will, in fact, be a one-minute division. Members, we cast the votes now. Amendment 125. The result of the vote on amendment number 125, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 94, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. I call amendment 126, in the name of the minister, minister, to move. I moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a 32nd division on amendment 126. The result of the vote on amendment number 126, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 95, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. Can I call amendment 127, in the name of the minister, minister, to move? I move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members, we cast the votes now on amendment 127. The result of the vote on amendment number 127, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 94, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. We are going to turn now to group 19 short term lets. Can I call amendment 156, in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings? I would point out at this stage that, if amendment 156 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 157, as will be preempted, or sorry, and as a consequence, amendments 157A to 157E, as they will all be preempted. Andy Wightman, to move amendment 156. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, before I forget, I move amendment 156. Following concerns expressed to me by constituents shortly after being elected in 2016, I began looking into the question of short term lets. I got the opportunity to lodge a general question on 19 January 2017, asking the Scottish Government what plans it had to regulate the growth. The minister will remember that probably as the audible sex party question. The minister, Kevin Stewart, told me that the Scottish Government has no plans to regulate the growth in short term letting. He told me that any change of use was a matter for the planning authority and that I should engage in the consultation on the planning bill, so here we are, where at stage 3 I engaged in the planning bill. I discussed the matter with planners, ran a consultation over summer 2018 and concluded that the planning rules governing change of use needed to be changed. Put simply the conversion of a domestic dwelling to a commercial short term let is a change of use and requires consent if the change is material. That is the law today. The problem lies in determining whether such a change is material or not, since planning authorities across the country tend to assess the question on the basis of the intensity and frequency of visitors. That is an impossible task for planning officers to effectively monitor the comings and goings of visitors. I lodged an amendment stage 2, which provided that a simple change of use from a dwelling to a commercial short term let, which is no longer the sole or main residence of any person constituted a change of use for the purposes of planning law with no additional material inquiries needing to be made. That amendment was accepted at stage 2, at form section 11B of the bill. At stage 2, the minister promised to work with me in advance of stage 3, as did Conservative members. My amendment 156 reflects recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to define short term lets, which I have done. Amendment 156 does not, however, has been frequently claimed, fetter the discretion or autonomy of planning authorities in any way. It merely makes a modest change to the framework for considering change of use, regulations that have been in place since 1997 and which are universal in their application across Scotland. Amendment 156 makes a modest change to the gatekeeping functions, determining what is and what is not a change of use. Any change of use to a commercial short term let is a material change of use today, in almost every instance, and planning authorities are dealing with those applications today. Local flexibility, which has been at the centre of many people's concerns about this, does not arise from planning law. There is not a single piece of the planning bill of the 1997 act to my knowledge that only applies in certain parts of Scotland. Scots law is for Scotland. Local flexibility does not arise from law, it arises from plans and policies that enable planning authorities who are free to consent to as many or few applications as they wish, in line with their own plans and policies. My amendment does not change that one bit. Rachael Hamilton's amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. It sabotages the central purpose of amendment 156 by making the modest change that I have just outlined applicable only to so-called short term let control areas. I am sure that a phrase will be repeated ad nauseam by the SNP and the Tories to pretend that they have done something about this problem. By making the provisions of 157 subject of further regulations, the opportunity is then created for the vested interests in the short term let industry to influence those regulations in their own interests. That should be of no surprise to any member, since Airbnb was a member of the Government panel on the collaborative economy. We already know that some planning authority is not even interested in those so-called zones. Glasgow City Council argued last week that the zonal approach suggested by the Conservative amendment did not fit with the current policy. It would fail to protect the immunity of residents living outside of those zones who may be unaffected by unauthorised change of use to short stay accommodation, said a council spokesperson. All of which raises the question, if planning authorities are not interested in the provisions within 157, those so-called areas, when they are finalised, what are they to do? What if they think that those control areas are of no use to them? I accept the parliamentary arithmetic. Rachel Hamilton's amendment will probably pass, but I put to the Conservatives a compromise some weeks ago. I said that for those areas that are not to be short term let control areas allow them to enjoy some modest improvement in the law. Hence my amendments 157, A, B, C, D and E, to Rachel Hamilton's amendment, which are designed to allow planning authorities for whom control areas are deemed not to be the answer, a more straightforward means of identifying properties that are changing their use. In other words, if the minister and Rachel Hamilton are genuinely interested in local choice, provide one. Thank you very much, and I call on Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 157 and the other amendments in this group. There has been a growing concern about platforms such as Airbnb revolutionising the short-term renting of properties in popular tourist destinations. However, Scotland must be a welcoming country, and we must have flexible and affordable accommodation right across Scotland. Particularly in the major cities of the world, we have been experiencing this pressure. The main focus, of course, here has been on Edinburgh. Yes, hang on one second, Mr Hamilton, just one second. Mr Findlay. Declared an interest that started for contribution. That is not a point of order, Mr Findlay. It is up to each member to decide whether or not others would judge whether they have something to declare or not. That is entirely a matter for the member to decide. Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like many other MSPs, I do not have an Airbnb or a short-term rental. I thank Neil Findlay for being so considerate. Of course, the main focus in Scotland has been areas in Edinburgh, in particular the old town, and those areas have been weighed down by the burden of an increase in inward bound visitors. The Scottish Conservatives are well aware of the concerns of local residents and understand that situations of antisocial behaviour and a lack of housing are just two areas of concern, which Andy Wightman, in fact, talked to me about. Despite the lack of concrete data, we believe that there is anecdotal evidence to signify a regional variation, with Edinburgh, certainly, as I have mentioned, experiencing the highest concentration of short-term leptor. Would you mind just pointing the microphone slightly more towards you when you are speaking? It is on, but it is just there. It is red. Is that okay? Sorry, I interrupted in the middle of a potential intervention, but it is back to Rachel Hamilton to decide whether to take an intervention or otherwise. I will take an intervention. I am grateful to the member for giving way. I wonder if she will just admit to the chamber that what she is doing with section 157 is providing a wrecking amendment to the work of Andy Wightman, and if she is not wrecking the proposal that he is putting forward, can she explain why? As a Conservative, she is arguing for a more bureaucratic and time-worthy process. Rachel Hamilton Of course, I completely disagree with Kezia Dugdale. The amendment delivers a flexible approach allowing local authorities to give discretion to set short-term let control areas. I understand and we understand well the pressures that are experienced by residents. My amendment seeks to find a solution for local authorities to regulate in those areas that are saturated. I would have thought that Kezia Dugdale would have welcomed the amendment. I hope that Labour will eventually support it after they have heard what we have to say. I also thank the Government for working with the Scottish Conservatives to achieve that aim, Freudian slip. Furthermore, our amendment will devolve discretion to local authorities to create short-term let control areas as I have set out. The purpose of amendment 157 is to target the requirement for planning permission to the most pressurised areas where the local authorities can choose whether or not to promote short-term let control areas within which planning permission will always be required. Can I finish this section, please? Section 26b allows a planning authority to designate all or part of the area as a short-term let control area. In designated areas, the use of dwelling house providing short-term lets would be a material change of use of the dwelling house and would require planning permission. For clarification, a tenancy of a dwelling house or part of it where all or part of the dwelling house is the only or principal home of the landlord or occupier that does not constitute a short-term let. I will give way to Andy Wightman. She said that within the control areas such a change of use will always require planning consent. Is she not aware that that is the case right across Scotland today? The only question is about the materiality of that change of use. Therefore, her amendment does nothing for the vast majority of Scotland who will probably never use these control areas because they probably can be far too bureaucratic and will be subject to the rules that the Scottish Government deem appropriate in defining what a short-term let is. Unlike Andy Wightman, we are taking this situation very seriously and putting residents first, and also being a welcoming country and ensuring that we do create job opportunities and grow the economy. Moreover, my amendment seeks to deliver a flexible approach, which is the right one, allowing local authorities to be saturated by short-term lets to regulate, but on the other hand allowing for those authorities who do not have that burden not to be legally bound by regulation, my amendment clearly demonstrates a willingness to ensure a positive outcome for residents and communities, some of whom live in attractive and popular tourist hotspots. Andy Wightman's amendment 157A to E will, if supported by the Scottish Parliament, create a situation where all short-term lets that do not fall under any exemptions and section 11B will constitute a material change of use six months after the bill receives royal assent and so will require planning permission. Many owners and operators may find the use of property as a short-term let was unauthorised, putting them in breach of planning control, potentially exposing them to enforcement action. Should planning authorities be minded to take such action, of course, there will be a consequential burden placed on local authorities and the owners and operators in obtaining retrospective planning consent. To sum up, it seems to me that Andy Wightman's amendment has taken the kill approach, whereas mine is the cure approach. My amendment seeks to find a balance between happy tourists and happy residents, essentially driving tourism growth but protecting residents with regulation. Andy Wightman's amendment will kill off any future growth in tourism in areas that need it. My amendment provides a solution to local problems. I appeal to members to ceaseence and not to support Andy Wightman's amendment. Daniel Johnson I begin by thanking Andy Wightman for the huge amount of work and effort that he has put into this very important issue. I think that not only do we owe him thanks but the whole of the city of Edinburgh owes him thanks, because this is a city-wide problem in Edinburgh. I will make one observation that small observations are often the signifier of much larger change. If you look around the streets of Edinburgh and the main doors of tenements, you will see that key safes have appeared doorway after doorway. That is a sign of a much larger change of thousands of residential properties taken out of residential use. That has had a huge impact on the whole of the city, but particularly in my constituents. Rachel Hamilton says that we do not have data. Let me give her some data. In my constituency alone, 1,810 addresses are registered with Airbnb out of a total number of 35,443 addresses in total in my constituency. That is 5 per cent of all dwellings in my constituency. That has a huge impact on the city and why citizens in Edinburgh are saying that we are increasingly experiencing a Disneylandification of the city. It is changing the nature and affordability of living in the city. We have to acknowledge that Airbnb has changed from its original purpose. It is now a business that attracts investment and has impacts on people and the city. Of course, short-term, let's have their place but not to the extent that it has had in Edinburgh. The reality is that we are seeing average house prices cruise towards £300,000 in the city. We have to regulate that. That is why Andy Wightman's amendment is proportionate and will make a difference. Quite frankly, Rachel Hamilton's amendment is deficient because it is reactive and not proactive. It is simply shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and gives no additional powers and no meaningful change to local authorities to regulate planning in this critical area. I urge members to vote for Andy Wightman's amendment because it is critical to ensure that we do not have this disproportionate change of use, taking houses out of residential use and putting them into business use. The city needs it and I urge people to vote with that in mind for the sake of Andy Wightman, and in particular members representing Edinburgh areas. That is an amendment that is required. Alex Rowley, to be followed by Kezia Dugdale. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is another group that illustrates the SNP Tory stitch-up of this bill that has often suffered. It may not like to hear it, but the new SNP Tory alliance is evident in this bill. We would like to express our support for Andy Wightman regarding the amendments. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance can shout out all rights, Presiding Officer. The fact is that we have seen once again a progressive proposal being halted by the new alliance editories in the SNP. That is the bottom line. We believe that the amendments are proportionate and are a proportionate response to the growth of short-term lets across Scotland, from urban centres to the highlands and islands. Unfortunately, they have been misrepresented as interventions that will prevent buildings from becoming short-term lets. In fact, they simply require a change of use with local authorities, the arbiter of the change, and air beam bees that are no longer someone's sole residence represent a change of use. They become a commercial entity and not a home. That is simply fact. Local authorities require a strong understanding. I have some empathy with Andy Wightman's position, but I want to ask the question because he is arguing that he needs protection. I hear what Daniel Wightman said about it being in Edinburgh, but if you look at Rachael Hamilton's amendment 1572, she talks about the let-control area. If you are right, that is about localism. A local authority can, if it chooses, designate the whole of its local authority as a let-control area. The same application would have, but they would still have to apply for permission. It is giving localism for local authorities to decide, but the outcome would be the same in the case of having to apply for a change of use. Are you saying now that you do not support that localism? I will come on to answer the specific point about Rachael Hamilton's amendment, but local authorities require a strong understanding of housing need in the local area. It is right that they should understand when a home undergoes a change of use and becomes a short-term let, particularly at a time when housing is in such short supply in many parts of our country. We are proud of Scotland's thriving tourism industry, and we consider the room-sharing and access to affordable accommodation that Airbnb has enabled as a positive contribution. However, a high concentration of short-term lets in a small area can have a negative impact on shared spaces and community cohesion. Local authorities understand the crucial role that tourism plays in local economies, and we trust them that when they, for their policy on short-term lets, form that policy, which must emphasise that it is separate to the amendment, they will reach a balanced position in the public interest. We do not support Rachael Hamilton's amendment in this group. The ineffective rent pressure zones are a case in point for why we should not trust ministers with those kinds of regulations. I urge the new SNP Tory Alliance to think again, vote in the interests of the people of Scotland and vote for Andy Wightman's amendment. I rise specifically to talk to section 156 and to oppose section 157 and commend Andy Wightman for his work in that regard. He has done it thoroughly over a number of months and years, doing the detailed work around the legislation, but also taking colleagues with him, providing opportunities for briefings, meeting with the industry every step of the way. He has done a very serious and thorough job in that regard. Section 156, amendment 156, I think, is particularly astute because it is not particularly radical. I urge members to look at the detail of that. It is not a crusade against the industry of Airbnb or other equivalent sites. It is very specifically to seek to curtail the proliferation of commercial lets. Those are instances in which we allow big companies or wealthy individuals to buy up properties all across the city for the sole purpose of putting them on the internet for short-term lets. Those are not residential properties, but they are businesses. The amendment makes no difference and has no effect whatsoever on individual citizens who want to rent out their own property for a certain number of days or months in the year or, indeed, a room within a house in which they live. That is not the effect of that amendment. It is simply to curtail the proliferation of commercial lets. I support it for three key reasons that I will run through very quickly. Airbnb is causing misery to countless numbers of my constituents across the city, particularly if you live down at the shore or on Leith Walk or off Easter Road, represented by Ben Macpherson, if you live in Portobello or Abbey Hill, represented by Ash Denham, if you live in the grass market or the new town, represented by Ruth Davidson, all of whom will vote for Rachael Hamilton's amendment this afternoon. That is anti-social behaviour on Macs. The second reason that I think it is important to look at those measures in detail is that they are distorting the property market. When big companies come in and buy up those properties, it makes it harder for working people to live in this city. If you go on to the internet today and look at how much it costs to rent a one-bedroom property in the grass market on Easter Road, it is £850 for a one-bedroom room in this city. That is pushing people out of the city and beyond its limits, all because of people buying up properties for the purposes of what they are voting on today. Finally, another reason to support it, perhaps the whole point of Airbnb is to provide tourists coming to this city the experience of a home. What it is really like to live in the capital city of Edinburgh, all of that is lost when it is commercialised in the way that we are talking about today. I say to Rachael Hamilton that, far from killing off tourism, it is providing a sustainable alternative because it is protecting a means by which people can come and really experience what it is like to be in this city as a resident and as a citizen. I believe that amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. It bulldozes right through the very purpose of amendment 156 by introducing control areas. It kicks the can down the road into some grass called One Day Maybe. There is no scrutiny over it whatsoever about the size of the control areas, how they would operate, who would decide that it is far too late. SNP MSPs in this chamber should be uncomfortable in their seats today, voting with the Tories for this bill to go through. However, there are some members who should be more uncomfortable than others. Those who represent areas where working people are being pushed out of them, where families are being priced out of their communities, where communities are being hollowed out by a largely unregulated industry. That is a small but important change that I commend Andy for the work that he has done and I hope that constituents of those who vote for this amendment today hold their members to account for the next opportunity. Neil Findlay has been followed by Mike Rumbles. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Andy Wightman has done exactly the right thing on this issue, and he has got support from a great number of people across Scotland because he has worked diligently on issues to address. The very real concerns raised by constituents in areas where short-term lets are impacting on the lives of people in the community are issues that are very real in Edinburgh. I doubt that there is any representative of the city who is sitting in this chamber at the moment who has not had representations on the impact of short-term lets. That is an issue across the world. I was in Barcelona last year and there is a massive movement reacting against that in Barcelona. What we are seeing today is the Government and the Tories coalescing to dismiss the concerns of people and communities whose lives are affected by this sector. No-one is saying that Airbnb and the like should not exist, but we have to ensure that they are regulated and that local authorities who know the local housing market are that regulatory body. What we are seeing in this city just now is working-class people being driven out of the city that cannot afford to live in it, and representatives of the city need to look themselves in the mirror. I tell you, having seen this first hand, there is a growing social movement across the world against this type of letting. It will come here, it will grow here. This is just a marker for what is going to happen, because the more that people are driven from the communities that they should be living in, there will be a big reaction against it. I will tell you this. The Tories' SNP should take note. Mike Rumbles I, too, would like to thank Andy Wightman for his efforts with the subject. It is well recognised that Andy Wightman has bought an area of knowledge to the chamber, which is to be welcomed. In my view, Rachael Hamilton's amendment is indeed a wrecking amendment. Unfortunately, it prioritises—it does not do more than that—the tourist industry against the rights and the individual residents. Rachael Hamilton wants to see short-term lets in pressured areas. What it does not do is affect the blight that some short-term lets have made on individual residents not living in so-called pressured areas. If residents do not live in a pressured area, it can still cause immense problems for those individuals, and we have heard something about that already. We are all being told that control areas are meant to cover pressured areas. That measure is being made clear in this debate, and I listened carefully to what Rachael Hamilton had to say. It is kicking the can down the road on this really important issue, and we should have addressed it a long time ago. I was very pleased that Andy Wightman has addressed it the way he has it, so disappointing that the Government in coalition this time with the Conservatives. I have a sense of deja vu. In the third Parliament, that always happened. Just for those members who were not here in the third Parliament, the SNP Government and the Conservative Party always got together to push things through. I am only stating it. Take the credit where it is due. You managed to achieve that. I congratulate the Conservatives for the influence that they had over the SNP administration, and I am astonished that I seem to be getting this... Let's hear the member, please. The smiles from the front bench is amusing, I have to say. We used to accuse the UK Government of kicking cans down the road on Brexit, but this is kicking the can down the road with Government regulations yet again. I have never thought that it is a good idea to leave regulations to ministers. It really is our role in this chamber, in Parliament, to put what we think is right on the face of the bill and not kick the can down the road, not leave it to Government ministers to produce regulations that we cannot amend. I am, of course, very aware of the concerns that there are in certain parts of the country, and particularly here in Edinburgh, about the effects on local communities of houses and flats being used for short-term letting. We need to consider how we can address those concerns while not undermining the economic benefits of tourism, particularly in parts of the country, where they want to increase holiday accommodation. Let me be clear about a number of points here. First of all, Mr Wightman in his speech said that what he was proposing was a modest change, but his amendment would require significant numbers of new applications, costing up to £4.6 million for applicants and up to £1.7 million for planning authorities. I will finish at this part first, Mr Wightman. Let me be clear. It is for planning authorities to determine what constitutes a material change of use of any property. It is Andy Wightman's opinion that a change from a sole or main residence to short-term letting should always be considered material, but that has not universally been the position taken in planning decisions and appeals. A lot may depend on the location of the property and the impact and amenity and on housing availability in the area, which is not the same in all parts of Scotland. I will take Mr Wightman. That has been one of the bits that has bedevilled the conversation. The minister put out a revised financial memorandum that has topped of millions of pounds, yet the only people who can determine whether a change is material are planning authorities. Therefore, planning applications are required in all instances, now and even after the amendment. In his consultation on short-term let's issued in April 2009, he said that there is no definition of what constitutes a material change of use from residential to short-term letting. Whether a material change of use is occurred and planning commission is therefore required is a matter of fact in the grief of the relevant planning authority to consider on a case-by-case basis. All those applications should be coming into the planning authority anyway, and my amendment makes no difference on the volume. That is an argument that has been rehearsed in my office on a number of occasions. Mr Wightman will not shift in his opinion, and I talked about his opinion on all of that. Let me move on. Separately from the planning bill, the First Minister announced a Scottish Government consultation on short-term let's on 29 April, which will run until 19 July this year. That seeks the views on the regulation of short-term let's to enable councils to control the number of let's and ensure that they make a contribution to the services that they use, ensuring proportionate and appropriate regulations and enforcement. That is intended to help deliver a programme for government commitment to give local authorities the powers that they need to balance the needs of their communities with the economic benefits of short-term let's. We have heard a lot today from members from Edinburgh, and that does not surprise me in the least. I think that what is right for Edinburgh is not a Scotland-wide difficulty. That is why I support Rachael Hamilton's amendment. That gives the flexibility to local authorities in different areas, and it gives flexibility to parts of areas within those local authorities. What is right for poor tree might not be right for caithness, as I have found out in the conversations that I have had with members. What is right for Aberdeen city might not be right for parts of Aberdeenshire. That is why we need the localism and the flexibility with the amendment that is being put forward by Rachael Hamilton, which would allow planning authorities to consider the impact of short-term letting in every part of their area and implement measures where they are needed, exercising their local knowledge and judgment to address short-term letting proportionately. It is always so frustrating when members in this chamber speak out in favour of localism that, when it comes to the crunch, they are often willing to vote against localism. That, I am afraid, does not wash with me. I do not support Andy Wightman's amendment 156 or amendment 157A to E, which would wrap around short-term letting control areas to perpetuate the situation in which all short-term letting across Scotland would require permission for change of use. Amendment 219 would bring the provisions of section 11B into effect in six months after royal assent, and that would leave very little time for landlords and planning authorities to prepare for the changes that ever version of section 11B is agreed to. I call on members to reject the amendments in this group in the name of Mr Wightman and to support amendments 157 and 159 in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Thank you very much, minister, and I call on Andy Wightman to wind up in this group. I am beyond despair at this debate. We have properties in this city, in Aberdeen, in Portree—I know that my mother lives in Portree—there is a problem in Portree right across Scotland, which has not applied for planning consent and should be applying for planning consent. Nothing in my amendment changes the fact that they should be applying for planning consent. It merely makes it easier to identify the circumstances in which they should and prevent planning officers from having to stand at properties and gateways working out who is coming and going. I have had two unregulated flats in this city. One is occupied by an 83-year-old woman. She is the last resident in her stair. She keeps her front door open—not the main door on the road. One day, a naked woman runs in, followed by a naked man. They have sex in front of her in her living room, followed by another naked man who runs in, shouting that you are in the wrong flat. That is the kind of breakdown in social order that this is providing in places that people regard as home. Or a 50-year pupil who needs her English to get into university does not get any sleep because, in the flat above, there is a bunch of probably rugby fans parting all night. She fails her exam and she does not get into university. That is why I feel passionately, as do many other members, that this requires a more effective solution in the planning system in which it is already in the planning system. This debate has been bevelled by misinformation. Rachel Hamilton talks about flexibility, and Michelle Ballantyne talks about localism. There is nowhere in the town and country planning use classes in Scotland or in 1997, or the planning Scotland bill, or the 1997 act in which any planning authority is allowed to opt out of planning law. The flexibility comes in plans and policies. Here is an enforcement action from Glasgow City Council in a flattered dwelling, saying that it is contrary to policy CDP 10, meeting housing needs and supplementary guidance SG11, meeting housing needs, contained within the city development plan adopted in 29 March 2018. Glasgow has designated areas of the city. It can call them short-term control areas if it wants, and it has said that there shall be no short-term lets in it. That is plans and policies that do that. If Aberdein or Portrait or Paisley wants lots of them, they are free to do it. Nothing in my amendment prevents that. Given that the minister has a consultation in this very area, is it not advisable to wait for that where we could, in fact, end up with a much better situation like there is in Paris, where the Airbnb has to be the main residence, it is only let for a third of the year and has to be registered? Is there not a possibility that we could get a much better system? I thank the member for that intervention. She should have read the consultation. The consultation is on a proposal to licence the operators. It is not a consultation on any changes to planning law. Just like the alcohol licensing, the first box that you have to take on an alcohol licence if you want to have a licence is have you got planning permission from the premises from which you intend to operate? That will be solved by a more effective planning regime that determines whether those uses can take place and then by a licensing regime that makes sure that the operator is a fit and proper person. That is what that is, and I welcome that. The process has been disappointing to put it mildly. Promises to work together have been broken. I was told in fact that Rachel Hamilton's original amendment, number one, which was lodged back in December, was not even endorsed by her party. I first became aware of amendment 157 when it was handed to me by a Conservative MSP minutes before I was due to have a meeting with representatives of the short-term let industry. Worse still, they had been given a copy of it before I had. I was put in the rather strange position of knowing nothing about what was in the amendment and the short-term let industry, who had flew up from London, knew all about it and thought that it was a wonderful compromise. It is no surprise that the Conservative party's tourism spokesperson had nine meetings with the industry and lodged one amendment to the bill. I had six such meetings during which I worked hard to find some changes that would address industry concern. We were actually working— Sorry, Mr White, when Rachel Hamilton wishes to make a point of order. I seek guidance on this one. I would like to state that I have not had nine meetings and I would like to see the evidence that Andy Wightman has to suggest that I have had nine meetings with the short-term let sector. I note that the member wishes to correct the record. There are a number of methods of doing so that are open to both members. In this case, she has alerted the member to her own feelings about the matter and it will be up to the member, Mr Wightman himself, to decide whether to take action. Mr Wightman, I have examined the register of interest and I am happy to share with her the nine occasions on which she met the industry. She has not met nine times of the Airbnb but the wider industry. I worked hard with the industry. We were even at the point where we had drafting changes. Amendment 157 lands in front of us four weeks ago. Airbnb, home and away, all the other industries have lobbied hard against regulation of this out-of-control industry all across the world. They have what they want. They have an anodyne amendment that is worse than the status quo. It requires further regulations by ministers, which will no doubt be the target of further industry lobbying to water them down. I know from conversations that I have had with planning officials and constituents in Lothian and throughout Scotland in Portree that the reform would be very welcome. Amendment 156 would be welcome. Unfortunately, it has been sabotaged by an amendment by Borders-based Tory MSP Rachel Hamilton, who, with the connivance of the SNP Government, has lodged to the amendment, restricting my modest reform to short-term let control areas that, as I say, would be worse than the status quo. I am happy to give way. Michelle Ballantyn? I have said that I have empathy with you. I have read everything that you have sent. I have had a huge amount of empathy on a personal level debate between the two, but the way that you are phrasing it now has just lost my empathy. This is about trying and I would like Mr Wightman to explain for me because you started this by saying that this already existed and that everybody who had short-term let should have already been applying under planning law. The authorities have not forced that. If that is what you believe, I personally, having looked at it, do not necessarily agree with you, but they have not enforced it. You are now saying that they all want this and that it would help them, but if you are arguing that they already have it, why have they not been using it? I am now thoroughly confused about what your position is. Mr Wightman? Andy Wightman? I think that the Conservatives have been confused about this all the way along. The Town and Country planning use classes Scotland order 1997 cites 11 classes of property from businesses to residential institutions, assembly and leisure, etc. Short-term let's are a suey, generous use class. That means that they exist outside those 11 classes. That means that prima facie are a change of use and only planning authorities can make a determination as to whether that change of use is material and therefore a planning application is required in all instances. One of the problems that we have in this city—and I know that people are operating and changing use illegally—is that people are operating and changing use illegally. That is why there are so many enforcement actions and why Glasgow is doing it. Glasgow is doing it effectively because it has good plans and policies. All that I am arguing, as Chris Douglas said, is a modern reform to remove this very difficult-to-apply materiality test. I will wind up there. The short-term let's industry has run a sustained campaign of misinformation and downright lies about the impact of my amendment. It has frightened folk here in this city and across Scotland who are just letting out a room in their home into believing that I was intent on shutting down their enterprises. I know because they wrote to me with that concern. I was very pleased to correct the record and say that this will have nothing whatsoever to do with you. It is deeply disappointing that I have been unable to secure improvements in the planning system for those who are affected by the blight of short-term let's. Although our SMP and Tory MPs may be pleased with themselves this week, I will continue to fight to defend the residents of Scotland in everywhere I can. Thank you very much. Before we move to the vote on amendment 156, I would just point out that, if amendment 156 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 157 or any of the amendments to amendment 157 that is 157A to E. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 156. The result of the vote on amendment 156 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 35, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I would call amendment 157 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Rachel Hamilton will not be able to call amendments 156. The question is that amendment 157A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a 30-second division on amendment 157A. The result of the vote on amendment 157A in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 34, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 157B in the name of Andy Wightman. Andy Wightman to move. Andy Wightman not moved. I call amendment 15C in the name of Andy Wightman not moved. Does Mr Wightman wish to move either 157D or E? I would love to, Presiding Officer, but I won't. I will not. Unless any other member wishes to move them, we will not be moving 157D or E. The question is that amendment 157A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote on amendment 157A and again this will be a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 157A in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 87, no, 33. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We will turn now to group 20, which is the assessment of health effects. I would just point out to members at this stage that that was clearly quite a long group. We are running slightly behind. I call amendment 198 in the name of Monica Lennon in a group on its own, Monica Lennon, to move and speak to amendment 198. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to move and speak to amendment 198 and refer to my register of interests as I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. At stage 2, I argued very strongly that planning has a unique role in protecting and improving public health. I presented a number of ideas to maximise the potential of this planning bill to make a real difference. At stage 2, I successfully amended the bill to allow an assessment of the likely health effects of national or major developments to be considered before planning permission is granted. That is a requirement on Scottish ministers to make regulations and my amendment 198 is an add-on to strengthening this. 198 sets out what the regulation should take account of. I will run through those as briefly as I can, but I just want to stress that this amendment is about making sure that public health is central to the planning system. It is about adding this requirement on major developments and national developments. We are not talking about very small-scale or household applications. We are talking about things like the consideration of cycling and walking routes, access to green space and play and recreation facilities. I move on this because the health of people in Scotland must be at the forefront when planning our communities. We all agree that that has to include physical and mental health and do that in a way that we really try to tackle health inequalities. What would the assessment do? It would look at things like infrastructure provision, including housing quality. All colleagues will know from their own case work that issues of poor quality housing such as people living in colds or hard-to-heat homes—homes that are damp or cramped or have little outdoor space—can have a negative impact on a person's health. Respiratory problems are something that comes up quite a lot. That needs to be taken account in large-scale developments. On transportation, the requirement would be to look at active travel, public transport provision and car dependency. Members will recognise the benefits of active travel, go far beyond just positive physical impact. Walking cycling is good for our mental health, is better for the environment and reduces the transport costs. Members might be wondering why we need to have amendment 198. I would say that it is because we cannot take for granted that those provisions are being properly addressed under the current system. Last year, Scottish housing news covered a report entitled progress on low-car neighbourhoods in Scotland. It found that housing developers are locking people into unhealthy and expensive car dependency by failing to provide infrastructure or enable access to healthier travel options, including walking cycling or car sharing. That has been an issue that came up a lot in stage 2. I know that it is important to access to healthcare. When I was working as a planner, when we talked about infrastructure, it was often about drainage and thinking about roads, not so much about healthcare. However, I know from speaking to colleagues across the chamber that there is increasingly where new housing has been added on, people are finding that they cannot get GP appointments and that GPs are closing waiting lists. That is why, when we discussed it yesterday, that consultation with the NHS and the chief medical officer is really important, because we are not joining up the system. The provision is about healthcare services, looking at the opportunities that we need in communities. When we talk about building units, as house builders do, or building houses, we need to build communities. It is about how we build in strong, resilient and cohesive communities where we can bring people together and create the opportunities for participation so that we do not see the rise in social isolation and loneliness that we are seeing. Another issue that came up in healthcare at stage 2. I know that some colleagues thought that that is not really for the planning system to consider in great detail, but access to public toilets. I know that many members again raised that issue. Because of poor and limited access to public toilets, with people in Scotland who have disabilities and who are not able to get out and participate in our communities, there are particular issues around women and older people. Again, we want all of that to look at. The regulation also looks at green space and children's play areas. We know that green space has a positive impact on mental health and well-being, and children's play is vital for their development and well-being. It is about putting things into the heart of planning and decision making. We must give people the right opportunities to live a healthy lifestyle, and that includes the choice to cycle, to walk, to access green space and play and be active in their community. Planning has the power to do that. Amendment 198 has the potential to positively contribute to public health and improve the health and well-being of all of our communities. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I cannot support the amendment. The list of matters to be considered is too prescriptive and should not be set in stone without further consideration and consultation. Although each of the items in the list is clearly valuable in the right circumstances, the wording of the amendment means that all of them must be considered in every health impact assessment. The world health organisation is clear that screening and scoping should be used to ensure that health impact assessments are appropriate to the development proposed. The public health reform agenda is considering place and public health reform and the place principle, a key consideration for planning, which is about services and assets coming together to deliver better outcomes for people in an area. We would expect that work to inform regulations about health impact assessments. It is therefore premature to include a set of criteria for the regulations at this stage, and I would ask members not to support the amendment. There has been some talk this afternoon about amendments and accepting Tory amendments and others. In those regards, apart from Rhoda Grant, all the Labour amendments were lodged in the last two days available, having had seven months to discuss their ideas if they wanted, which they chose not to in many cases. That shows the fact of why we have not supported some of those amendments, but we have supported many of Rhoda Grant's amendments because of the time available to communicate and to get things right. I am not able to force folk to come and engage. Some folk have, and I think that the bill has benefited from that communication. Can I ask Mark Llyr, if she wishes to wind up or add anything else at this stage? Yes, I do. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to pick up on that final point, minister, I was very privileged to be part of the committee at stage 2 and as someone who worked as a planner for 12 years across industry and in the public sector. I have to say that I found it very disappointing that what the minister was actually doing in terms of the meetings that he was having with selective MSPs was very much cherry-picking. I will let you back in in a moment, minister, if you want to sit down for a second. I would like to continue because I see some people in the gallery who actually cared very deeply about those issues. I, Andy Wightman and others, including Graham Simpson, worked very hard and in good faith to find points of agreement. We have obviously been betrayed by Graham Simpson, as we have seen over the past two days. However, when I and other colleagues did have individual meetings, I did not see them come to those meetings with an open mind. I think that they have been very selective. I am sure that Rhoda Grant is very grateful that you have picked it out, but we are a team here. If we can stick to the planning bill, I am sure that you have your own issues in your own group. However, the planning bill actually matters to people in communities and some of them are in the gallery. The minister will reflect back on stage 2 and he will know fine well that he was being very selective of what he was willing to discuss. He had a closed mind on equal rights of appeal, which we are going to get to. However, if I can just pick up on 198, because that is what we are talking about right now, I think that that was quite a pitiful response. It shows how timid this Government is actually being when it comes to the opportunity to actually transform the planning system. If we step back and look at the challenges, that are facing the country, which are many, we know that we hear about record levels of investment in the NHS and record levels of workforce, but people's health is not improving. It is the outcomes that matter. I do not know where the Cabinet Secretary for Health is, but she will know that Audit Scotland is saying that. Jeane Freeman So, Ms Lennon is quite incorrect to say that people's health in Scotland is not improving, and I advise her to look at the statistics and understand health in Scotland before she makes such random comments. I do not think that it is random to care about the health inequalities that persist in Scotland. Despite the success of health secretaries, we are not seeing real improvement. In fact, we have the Auditor General warning that the future of the NHS is not sustainable. Let us join up and see what we can do through the planning system to help people to live longer and live well in their communities. We have very well established frameworks around environmental impact assessment minister. If we can do that kind of assessment, I am sure that the education secretary knows much more about it, but if the minister does care to listen for a moment, if we can do environmental impact assessment, why cannot we do health impact assessment to the same standard? The minister has talked about being overly prescriptive. We cannot leave those matters to chance. I am very disappointed that the minister is not willing to accept or support 1998, which is simply an add-on to what is in the bill, which would make it clearer what we expect across all our planning authorities. Communities want that kind of transparency. How else is the minister going to satisfy colleagues, such as Alex Cole-Hamilton and Ian Gray, who know of examples in their communities where people cannot get a doctor's appointment? They have the keys to assigning a new house, but they cannot get to see a doctor. I would be happy to give way to the minister shaking his head. That is the reality. Those are the practical solutions that we need. I am willing to give way to the minister— Ms Lennon, I think that it is time to conclude the remarks and to pressure withdrawal of what I need. I think that we have done that point. Ms Lennon has spoken eloquently about the health effects related to housing development, but not all national and major developments are housing. How would all of that fit and be relevant to other infrastructure such as flood prevention or renewable energy? That is the point that I would make again. Ms Lennon chose not to engage. If she had engaged, we might have come up with something that was workable. Unfortunately, she chose once again not to engage. Monica Lennon, I do not remember receiving an invite, but what I would say is that I have worked with an— I still know— Ms Lennon, I think that at this stage we have had a full debate on amendment 198. I would conclude your remarks and move to a vote on what I need. I know that many planners who work across Scotland are more than capable, if they get the right guidance, of making sure that they can hold developers to account so that they can ask developers to provide that information. The ministers might have more faith in Scotland's planners. I am conscious of the time, and I am afraid that we are running rather behind schedule. Before we move to the vote, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion. I will address this to the minister for Parliament. I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by up to up to 30 minutes. The risk of incurring the wrath of colleagues for the second time in 24 hours had so moved. Thank you very much minister. This is my request that the minister is moving this motion. The question is that the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes are well agreed. If we are not agreed, we will have to move to a vote. We will have a vote on the motion. I will put the question again, and I will make sure that there are extra resources put outside condiments for Mr Lyle to get his blood sugars up. The question is that the Parliament agrees that the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes are well agreed. We are agreed. Thank you very much. We are going to move now to the question on amendment 1.98. The question is that amendment 1.98 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed, so we will move to a vote. This will be a one minute division on amendment 1.98. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1.98 in the name of Monica Lennon is, yes, 32, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 1.28 in the name of the minister? Already debated. Minister to move amendment 1.28. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1.28 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We are going to turn now to group 21, which is renewable energy infrastructure. Can I call amendment 199 in the name of Claudia Beamish, grouped with amendments 203, 220 and 221? Claudia Beamish to move amendment 199 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move amendment 199. The aim of this amendment is that renewable energy infrastructure be required to be included in commercial and domestic new builds over a certain scale, as highlighted in the amendment, after a certain date. I've used the Town and Country Planning Act 2009 definition for major developments, referring to housing and business and general industry specifically. The amendment builds on the one that I was delighted to have passed at stage 2, which obliges local authorities to consider renewable energy in the formulation of local development plans. I'm clear that in this climate emergency it is imperative that the Scottish Government sets clear guidelines as to what is acceptable in terms of how our dwellings and our commercial properties are both heated and lit. However, I have not gone so far as to bring forward an amendment to say that every newly built house and commercial building must only have renewable energy installed, tempting as this was. This would be the obvious and logical next step, and nothing in this amendment prevents this happening, I hope, in the near future. In relation to those larger developments, Scottish ministers will, by regulation, require an application for planning permission for a major development to include renewable energy infrastructure, and the regulation on the aims of this amendment must be drafted and laid before the Parliament two years after Royal Ascent. That would enable the construction industry time to plan for this deadline and to send a clear signal to manufacturers about where it should be going in the climate emergency. This shift can be part of the just transition with appropriate strategic planning and relevant training strategies developed. There is also a consequential amendment to make the regulation subject to affirmative procedure. This amendment is supported by Scottish renewables who agree that this would give important support to small-scale renewable energy projects such as the solar pvn hydro as well as for Scotland's renewable heat industry. I now move to amendment 203 on small-scale renewables, and this amendment removes the planning permission requirement for small-scale renewables. Certain small-scale renewable developments will automatically be permitted development and therefore not need planning permission. For the purposes of subsection 2A, small-scale renewables means renewable sources of energy, including anaerobic digestion and biomass, solar, wind or water, with a total power output of 20 megawatts or less. I stress that that includes. The crucial element is that this is an accurate description of what constitutes small-scale renewables from the Renewables Obligations Scotland Order 2009. Ministers are to set appropriate exemptions to regulation, which might be for a listed building or a property in a conservation area, for example. The permitted development system is under the development orders that ministers can make under section 30 of the 1997 act. In terms of precedent, there are some amendments at stage 2 that sought to piggyback on that system as a way of saying that planning permission should be granted automatically or could not be classed as permitted development in certain circumstances. An example is John Finnie's amendment at stage 2, 164, on gypsy traveller sites. I have included the regulation-making powers for Scottish ministers to adjust exemptions and circumstances as they see fit. The whole amendment is subject to the affirmative procedure through consequential amendment 221. The amendment is also supported by Scottish renewables. They note that the small-scale renewables sector urgently needs attention in response to the closure of the feed-in tariff and the limited utility of the smart export guarantee. I hope that this is an area that the Scottish Government will lend a hand in. In this climate emergency, I hope that all members will accept the necessity of supporting this straightforward amendment that will enable a speedy and reasonable and proportionate way to enable residents to transfer to ways of heating and lighting their homes and contributing to the transformational change that we all need to act on as we shift to net zero emissions. The Scottish Government is fully committed to ensuring that the planning system contributes to achieving a net zero economy. Although I commend the intentions behind amendments 199 and 221 on renewable energy infrastructure, I cannot support the introduction of provisions that could add complexity and regulatory burden, which cut across the proper consultation and public engagement that is already under way. That includes a review of the energy standards of the Scottish building regulations, and we are considering next steps to further enhance the energy performance of buildings. That will include investigation of the continuing role of renewable technologies in the delivery of new buildings with very low energy demand and emissions. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcomes of that review with primary legislation that could then not be changed without a further bill. Amendments 203 and 220 seek to impose a requirement on ministers to introduce permitted development rights for renewable energy infrastructure for both domestic and non-domestic properties. However, permitted development rights are already in place for the majority of technologies listed, and we have previously consulted on others. Further, the amendments seek to introduce permitted development rights for development that could fall within the category of major developments, for example, a 20-megawatt wind farm. Such permitted development rights would remove public consultation, including pre-application consultation, if they were to be progressed. We have already committed to consulting on a work programme for expanding permitted development rights following the bill, alongside a sustainability appraisal that has been progressed with input from a wide range of stakeholders, and we should not pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. Finally, through Energy Efficient Scotland, we are putting in place a regulatory framework to make it the norm to invest in improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions from existing buildings. We are also taking steps to strengthen our policy framework for low carbon heat and will publish a heat decarbonisation policy statement and action plan in summer 2020. In short, those amendments cut across a wide range of work that is already under way to support renewable energy infrastructure, and I would ask Ms Beamish not to press them, but she can be assured that I will continue to engage with her on those issues as I have done in the past. I find it somewhat perplexing that the minister says in relation to my amendment on small-scale renewables that it would make for more complexity if I understand him to be saying it correctly and that what I am attempting to do is to make things much simpler for many constituents, particularly those whom I know of in my region, who, as I will say, are of grid, who have wanted to move to low carbon sources of heat and of light and have had to go through quite onerous processes. I do not really understand this part of what the minister is saying, so I am hoping for an intervention. Again, Presiding Officer, if there had been earlier discussion around some of that, we could have got that absolutely right. What Ms Beamish has in relation to her amendments here would make things much more complex in some cases at points where we want to get rid of that complexity. Again, I would say that this is one of the reasons why it is always good to talk about those issues at early stages so that we can help to get that right. Claudia Beamish, to conclude and to press or withdraw amendment 199. I am not going to press this amendment because I do not think that it is something that should be voted down. I am disappointed with what the minister is saying, but I do not intend to press it because I would be prepared to and have worked on other issues in the lead-up to the bill and others with the minister and with other ministers. Frankly, the reason that I put this in at a late stage was because I actually thought that it was quite straightforward, but I am not prepared to have it voted down. I will have dialogue with the minister about the future, and he has highlighted one more point that he did highlight, which I was keenly aware of, which made me hesitate as to whether to put the larger infrastructure amendment that I have argued for in relation to building regs. I am aware that there are issues within building regs that are going to be consulted on, so that gives me some cause for optimism. Does any member object if Ms Beamish withdraws amendment 199? Can I call amendment 176 in the name of Lewis MacDonald, which was already debated yesterday? Lewis MacDonald to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are going to move to a division on this. This is a first division after a debate, so it will be a one-minute division on amendment 176. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 176, a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 176 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is, yes, 33, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 177 in the name of Lewis MacDonald Lewis MacDonald to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a 32nd division on amendment 177. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 177 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is, yes, 32, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 178 in the name of Lewis MacDonald Lewis MacDonald to move? Not moved. That is not moved. Can I call amendment 179 in the name of Lewis MacDonald Lewis MacDonald? Not moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 179. The result of the vote on amendment 179 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is, yes, 32, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 129 in the name of the minister? Minister to move. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is a 32nd division on amendment 129. The result of the vote on amendment 129 in the name of Kevin Stewart is, yes, 87, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I am going to turn now to group 22. There will be a short break after this group, by the way. Group 22, determination of applications, Brownfield land. I call amendment 130 in the name of the minister. Minister to speak and move. Amendment 130. Presiding Officer, amendment 130 removes an amendment that was brought forward at stage 2 by Alex Cole-Hamilton. I spoke against it then and I believe others now agree that it goes too far. I fully recognise the importance of the green belt, our policy for this to set out in the Scottish planning policy, and planning authorities have a key role in applying this locally. We would naturally expect that anyone who wants to develop in the green belt would set out how their proposals fit with national and local policies, and the planning authority would take that into account in making their decision. However, there are many problems with Mr Cole-Hamilton's approach. It is very restrictive, definitions are unclear and it could effectively ban all development in the green belt. The green belt is important but it is not a blanket restriction on development. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I look forward to hearing the minister's remarks to expand on that ludicrous claim that this would lead to complete ban of any development on the green belt. My amendment has accepted at stage 2 merely forces conversations to be had about the prioritisation of land use in any local authority area. That is not what Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendment said. The green belt is important but it is not a blanket restriction on development. What would happen, for example, if someone who lives in the green belt wants to extend their home in a modest way? Should there be a ban on sensitively designed car parks that allow people to access the countryside around our cities? Perhaps most worryingly, that could lead to councils reducing their green belts and creating new, more flexible designations to allow for appropriate and necessary development. I fully expect that, as we take forward our review of the national planning framework, we will have a proper debate on the future role of green belts in Scotland and that we will also look closely at the issues of greenfield versus brownfield development. In the meantime, to avoid imposing an overly restrictive and unworkable set of requirements on authorities, residents and businesses, I call on members to support amendment 130 and remove section 14d from the bill. I move amendment 130. The minister has admonished several members in this debate thus far for not coming to the table to discuss the workability of amendments before this Parliament. He says that my approach in 14d goes too far yet he has made no overtures to me to talk about making this workable or to finding an amendment that would deliver on what I sought to do at stage 2. I want to take my opportunity to address a number of the points that the minister made in his remarks in support of amendment 130. He said that it would be impossible for somebody who lived on green belt to apply an extension. My amendment says that the developer has to demonstrate why it would not be possible to make that development on existing brownfield land. Well, if you are a homeowner looking to make an extension and you do not own the brownfield land that may be available several miles from your house, then it is impossible to make your extension on that brownfield land several miles from your house. Presiding Officer, we created the concept of green belt and brownfield for a reason. This section that I brought in was in response to a problem that is particular to Edinburgh but that is not unique to Edinburgh. My constituency of Edinburgh-Western has, over the last decade, experienced a rampant proliferation of housing development, some of it on greenfield and some of it on much-loved natural heritage. Liberal Democrats are not instinctively or ideologically opposed to housing. We recognise that Edinburgh needs new housing. We support the growth of Edinburgh's housing but in the right spaces and on an intelligent basis. Just two weeks ago, the SNP-led administration on Edinburgh City Council, along with other members of other parties, green-lighted a much unwanted development on the Camo estate. That will see a loss of much-loved areas of natural heritage, not green belt, I should add, but only because the SNP-led administration changed its designation in 2016. The garden district at Gile, which was again green-lighted by Edinburgh City Council, will see the proliferation of 2,000 homes on areas already designated as green belt. The point is that we need to engender discussions around that. We cannot just have a lip service commitment to the idea of green belt or brownfield if there is no legislative imperative for councils to receive representations from developers as to why there was no other way of building on brownfield site. There are many areas of deindustrialised areas in Edinburgh, crying out for regeneration, for the development of the much-needed houses for mid-market rent and social housing, which, frankly, developers are cynically not looking to, because they know that they can build mansions in greenfield land in my constituency instead. I would ask the members to reject the amendment. It is important for instilling a conversation at a planning level about the use of greenfield. It does not lead to a ban of any development whatsoever on greenfield land, and I ask the Parliament to reject the minister's amendment. I supported Alex Cole-Hamilton at stage 2, but I think that this is an example of where we need to look at what we have passed. It comes down to the words that are in the bill at the moment, so let me read them out. Without prejudice to the generality of subsection 1, where an application is made to a planning authority for planning permission for development on land designated as greenbelt land, a planning authority may not grant planning permission if the applicant has not included in the application a statement setting out why the development cannot be achieved on land, the planning authority consider brownfield land. So, let's think about that extension. How are you going to manage that? Then, the brownfield land that was considered and why it was not considered suitable, you have to show that you considered a piece of brownfield land. How on earth is that achievable for a small-scale extension or a conservatory or something like that? Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful. Again, this point was made by the minister that anyone living in greenbelt land who had a house, an existing house, who wanted to build an extension, would have to give a representation to the council as to why it was impossible for them to build on brownfield land. The argument that they would make quite reasonably to the local authority is that that brownfield land is not attached to my house. Graham Simpson I simply read what was passed at stage two, the brownfield land that was considered. You have to have considered a piece of brownfield land if you want to extend your house. I am not against the principle of what Alex Cole-Hamilton was trying to achieve, but I think that here is another example of where members just have to accept that maybe they did not get things quite right at stage two. I have done it and I know that people have been trying to contact Alex Cole-Hamilton to discuss this. He could have requested a meeting with the minister at pay as he did not do that, and that is to be regretted because we could have seen improvements rather than vote this down. I call on the minister to conclude. We have to work with what we have got. Section 14d requires that planning authorities could not approve any application for development likely to have an adverse effect on any intrinsic natural or cultural heritage value of the proposed greenbelt land. That is a very high bar and does not allow authorities to consider the benefits of the proposals. For example, facilitating access to the countryside. Section 14d would also conflict with section 25 of the 1997 act, which sets out that decisions should be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning authorities must have the discretion to appropriately weigh up relevant issues in making decisions. Beyond that, definitions, as are, are unclear in section 14d. There is no statutory definition of brinefield land, and local authorities are not required to designate it, so it is not clear how an applicant could know what land is considered to be brinefield by the planning authority. There is also a difference between designated greenbelt land and greenfield land. There can be brinefield land and a greenbelt, for example, old quarries or derelict farms, which could very well benefit from redevelopment. As it stands, 14d is a guzzle. Please back the amendment to remove it. Thank you. I apologise, Mr Rumbles. I think that it is like we know just as I called the minister. I have called every other member who wishes to contribute, and I will sum up shortly where we have reached. Before we do that, the question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. That will be a one-minute division on amendment 130. The result of the vote on amendment number 130 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 88, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. At this stage, we are five and a half hours into this debate altogether. Members may have noted that we have passed the extended agreed time limit by another five minutes. I exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate on that particular group to continue. However, just members know that we are roughly than 35 minutes behind schedule. We may catch up some of that time. I am still going to take a short break up to 10 minutes, but if members can be back before that, we will start sooner. So a short break, a short suspension of up to 10 minutes. I think that the main participants in the next group are here, so we will resume. Group 23, assessment of environmental effects. Can I call amendment 200, in the name of Claudia Beamish, grouped with amendments 181 and 219? Claudia Beamish, to move amendment 200 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 200 in my name. The amendments aim to bring climate change considerations more firmly into the process of determining an application for planning permission for national development. Amendment 200 states that, before planning permission is determined, a planning authority must consider the development's life cycle, greenhouse gas emissions and the impact that we will have on our emissions reduction targets. Amendment 219, I have mentioned before in relation to earlier amendment to the national planning framework part of the bill, as it is consequential to both. Defining life cycle emissions as the development's construction operation and decommissioning, and this rounded approach is correct in my view. I had a similar amendment at stage 2 of this bill and I have made adaptions following the minister's comments before removing major developments from this requirement would be an improvement and save duplication. Members will also recall that I had a similar amendment in the national planning framework section of the bill and this amendment 200 can work alongside that one. The duty in this amendment is placed on the planning authority. Again, I highlight the context of the climate change bill in the process of agreeing a target of net zero emissions by 2045 and this Government and other parties having declared a state of climate emergency in Scotland. In light of this, we must see national development proposals being explicitly considered in this framework and weigh up the long-term cost implications and climate change impacts of development proposals against potentially competing considerations, which may well be more short-term economic considerations. This can lead to an approach more aligned to sustainable development and help to guide us to make decisions that avoid investment that will not serve us well in the future and could indeed well lock Scotland in to unsustainable developments. Thank you very much. I call Graeme Simpson to speak to amendment 181 and the other amendments in this group. At stage 2, I attempted to get a very similar amendment through, but it was voted down by mistake when Monica Lennon voted the wrong way when she didn't intend to. It was an error and she admitted to that later, so that was unfortunate. However, if that had gone through and it had been in the bill, I would have been changing it because, like the previous section that we debated, it did go too far. I have brought this back in a different form. It establishes the principle that development needs to result in positive outcomes for biodiversity. It should provide some assurance to communities that decisions to approve development will be positive for nature. We will not be supporting Claudia Beamish's amendment 200. Environmental impact provisions appear elsewhere in the bill, such as my amendment 181. If that gets through, we will be supporting Claudia Beamish's amendment 219, which defines life cycle greenhouse gas emissions as the emissions associated with the construction operation and decommission of a development. There is an example of a brief speech. I have already supported Claudia Beamish's amendment that would require assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for national developments as part of the preparation of the national planning framework. I believe that it is the right time to undertake that assessment to introduce the same requirements for individual planning applications for the same developments that risk duplication, uncertainty and delay. For that reason, I do not support amendments 200 and 219. I can, however, support Graham Simpson's amendment 181. I have already brought forward amendment 173 to provide that securing positive effects for biodiversity will be a key outcome for the national planning framework. In addition, our strong track record in environmental assessment in Scotland means that consideration is already given to biodiversity where appropriate in determining individual planning applications. I am happy to include that additional wording. I thank Claudia Beamish for winding up in the group and to press a withdrawal on amendment 200. I will indeed press this amendment. I find it disappointing that the minister is not prepared to accept amendment 200. It seems that there is a logical progression. If the national planning framework is identifying the concerns in relation to the life cycle of those developments, it is only appropriate that it is assessed in terms of an individual planning application as well. I think that that would put an onus on local authorities to carefully consider where they are going with those issues. I intend to press amendment 200. Thank you. The question is therefore that amendment 200 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. This will be a one-minute vote. Members, please cast the votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 200 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes, 32, no, 84. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 180 in the name of Lewis MacDonald? The question is that amendment 180 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members, please cast the votes now. This will be a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 180 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is yes, 32, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 131 in the name of the minister to move? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members, please cast the vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 131 in the name of the minister is yes, 87, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I turn now to group 24 on access panels. Can I call amendment 168 in the name of Jeremy Balfour in a group in its own, and Jeremy Balfour to move and speak to amendment 168? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 168 in regard to the pre-application consultation process for major developments. As I am sure that many members are aware, the pre-application consultation is often the starting point, but an important starting point in making sure that what is delivered perhaps months or years later is suitable and correct. My amendment is called upon access panels where they are available within a local authority to be consulted on and at this stage. I think that that is particularly important in regard to major developments, because too often disability issues are not looked at and not identified in an appropriate way. Often planners and developers will talk about wheelchair access, but as all of us are aware, disability is much greater and wider in that, and often those issues are not addressed. I think that amendment would be something that would help developers and those who have disabilities to engage properly in the process, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about it. The Scottish Government absolutely supports the principle of disabled people being involved in shaping the places where they stay. I have introduced an amendment to require planning authorities to engage early on the development plan with disabled people. However, I cannot support the amendment as it stands for a number of reasons. As I noted at stage 2, access panels are not statutory bodies and not all authorities have access panels that cover the whole of their area. Mr Balfour's amendment would require consultation after the application for a major development had been received by the planning authority when it is difficult to make any significant changes. Applications for major development include engineering works and energy projects, where access panels may feel they have little to add. I consider that engaging disabled people at the pre-application stage on the right kind of developments will provide a better opportunity for issues around access to be considered before finalised proposals are brought forward. We will be bringing forward proposals for changes to development management procedures, including pre-application consultation following the completion of the scrutiny of the bill. I am happy to commit that engaging with disabled people will be part of those proposals, and the Scottish Government will certainly highlight the role of access panels where they exist in that process. I would ask Mr Balfour not to press his amendment. Jeremy Balfour, to wind up in this group and to press or withdraw amendment 168. I thank the minister for his helpful remarks, intervention and light of those. I will not be pushing the amendment in regard to that. Thank you very much. Does any member object if Jeremy Balfour withdraws amendment 168? No-one does. That is great. Can I call amendment 181, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 200, to move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 182, in the name of Lewis MacDonald, debated yesterday with amendment 175? Lewis MacDonald moved. Thank you. That is moved. The question is that amendment 182 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We turn now to group 25, conditional grant of planning permission. Can I call amendment 132, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments, as shown in the groupings and the minister, to speak to the other amendments? Presiding Officer, my amendments in this group are just minor changes to tidy up the wording of the provisions relating to changing places toilets. We have also taken the opportunity to ensure that these essential facilities are accessible and publicly available. I thank members, including Jeremy Balfour, Mary Fee and Angus MacDonald, for their input in all of that. It has been very welcome. The other amendments in this group have laudable aims, but they do not work in practical terms. I wish that Mr Cole-Hamilton and Ms Beamish should engage with me and officials on those amendments, as Jeremy Balfour and other members have done. At an earlier stage, we might have been able to agree on something that actually worked. Taking Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendment first would be simply daff to set standards for digital technology and primary legislation, because that technology changes very quickly indeed. Fibre to the Cabinet, as was mentioned in the amendment, is not even the gold standard today. Openreach routinely offers fibre to the premises for any development of 30 or more houses, and that would not comply with the proposed requirement. I will give way. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I accept that he may be speaking to my previous amendment, but I noticed that there was an error to the original amendment on reviewing it for our whip sheets just this week. You will see that I have submitted a correction, which explains that this will take fibre to the premises if my amendment is adopted. Presiding Officer, the Government is committed to ensuring that each and every premises in Scotland has access to superfast broadband through partnership between local authorities, developers and telecoms operators. We have provision in planning policy and in building standards to support that, but operators have to plan their work in different areas, and imposing broadband requirements on planning permission could prevent the delivery of housing if the timetables do not line up. As I said, it is very unwise to put that into primary legislation when things change in a regular basis. I will give way to Mr MacDonald. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. The recent development dubford in my constituency has been hit by the fact that inappropriate infrastructure was laid, which does not allow my constituents in that area to benefit from broadband internet connections. Although I am open minded in relation to the amendment, can the minister advise how that could potentially be dealt with better in future to ensure that new developments are catered for appropriately? Absolutely. We have to deal with all of that in terms of changes to building standards and planning policy. I am committed to doing that, but setting some of those things in primary legislation would cause quite some chaos as technologies change. If Mr MacDonald wants to write to ministers around the situation at Dubford, I am willing to ensure that that goes into the process to ensure that similar mistakes are not made again. Increasing cycling for transport and leisure is a key policy commitment for the Scottish Government. It has contributions to making both health and wellbeing and combating climate change. We are putting £80 million per year into active travel provision, and we are funding cycling facilities and workplaces, public places and schools and colleges through the places for everyone fund and the cycle friendly suite of programmes. However, I cannot support the introduction of such detailed requirements in primary legislation, which have not been subject to any assessment or consultation to consider whether they are appropriate, the costs of the additional space that is required and the possible practical difficulties that might arise. I appreciate that there are powers to amend the provisions, but I do not think that it is enough to justify introducing such detailed requirements in this late stage of the bill. Ms Beamish would also want the provisions to come into force within one year of royal assent. That is very little time to develop and consult and regulations to put that right. I do not support Mr Cole-Hamilton's and Ms Beamish's amendments, and I would ask them not to press them and move amendment 132. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to speak to amendment 3, I believe that he has already called members' attention to the fact that a correction slip has been issued to or circulated members on this amendment. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and my apologies again for the error in the original drafting of the amendment. I hope that members now understand that this amendment would see fibre optic cable taken both from the telephone exchange to the cabinet nearest the development and then on from the cabinet to the development itself. Members will see that this is titled amendment number 3, and that is indicative of how early I laid this. Yet, at no point have the minister or officials attempted to approach me on the subject to address. I think that Mr Cole-Hamilton, if he goes back to his office, will find that Andy Canaird, the bill team manager, contacted the office to see if there was anything that Mr Hamilton wanted to talk about in terms of not only his, but other amendments. So apparently it is now the case that Opposition members must come cap in hand to the Government and not have concerns that the Government may legitimately have with members' opposite amendments that they would seek to raise with them, such as the arrogant approach of the Government to this bill and the stitch that they have made with the Conservatives. I want to make progress, Mr Dornan. All of us in this chamber will have had meetings with organisations such as BT Openreach and other providers about the exciting new benefits of 5G technology that will set to revolutionise things such as homeworking and home gaming, entertainment and the rest of it, and connect isolated communities to our broader society through the benefits of digital communication. This amendment is about future proofing. All of us probably have new-build housing developments, as Mr MacDonald described, in our constituencies that were built without adequate IT infrastructure utility provision. There are other provisions for utilities on the face of bills. Throughout the test of time, with a certain degree of trepidation, I will take an intervention. I apologise for not raising this before I have only just read what is before us. It says nothing about what should be at the other end of the fibre. It only talks about what is at the end of the development. Therefore, it would be perfectly proper to meet the requirements of the amendment for the fibre simply to go down to the main road to the cabinet and no further. In that sense, it seems a rather inadequate amendment. I think that, from the member's intervention, he can only have skim-read my amendment, because it indicates that this would do both things. I advise him to pay more attention. This is about future proofing. Kirk Lieson, in my constituency, was built without adequate broadband provision to the cabinet or to the premises. For a community just six miles from this location to suffer broadband speeds of less than half a meg, in 2016-17, when it was addressed, is, frankly, appalling. I think that it is important to put things like this on the face of the bill. We are not talking about a revolution in technology beyond the fibre optic for the foreseeable. If that comes, we can repeal this aspect of legislation. I am winding up, but I will take an amendment from Mr Mac. I am grateful to the member for giving me that. As I said, I was open minded in relation to that. The concern that I would have is that, if we had been debating this, say, maybe 10 years ago, we would have been talking about copper and we would have been talking about exchange to premises, such as, for example, existing kingswells in my constituency, which is now causing great difficulty in retrofitting the infrastructure to ensure that those properties are adequately connected. My concern would be, as Mr Hammond talks about future proofing, but if technology moves on in the future and retrofitting were to be required, it could potentially put residents and local authorities at great expense in order to change that. Would he accept that as a potential flaw in this amendment? Every single premises in the country that is currently served by copper for the receipts of their broadband will eventually have to have those retrofitted and their pavements dug up and the rest of it. All I am suggesting in this amendment is to future proof that, so that new bills to which we all accept that developers will default to the use of copper, because it is cheaper, will have to be retrofitted when we roll out 5G technology. It is an important step to date and it signals that we are a future-minded country, and I urge the chamber to support it. Here in the Parliament, we are lucky to have the benefit of safe bike storage, which is within what I have stipulated in my amendment, within 30 metres of the building. In fact, it is actually, as we all know, under the building. We also have the following. We have showers and what is termed in the amendment water closets rather old-fashionedly and hand-washing basins and continuous supplies of hot and cold running water. Changing rooms are provided with seating, facilities to enable a person to dry any specific clothing and any personal clothing or effects, suitable and sufficient facilities to enable a person to lock away any clothing that has not taken home, the person's own clothing that is not worn during working hours and the person's personal effects, on-site provision and availability of cycle maintenance tools. Those facilities I have stipulated, as I say in my amendment. We have led here by example, and I am clear that others should have the opportunity to have similar arrangements as they cycle or indeed walk to work or run. Having good facilities is one of a range of measures that would encourage people to cycle to work, and I hope that members will support this amendment on that basis. I have to say that the personal experience of being able to use the facilities in this Parliament has made a significant difference to my ability to cycle to work and that of many others who I know who also do so. There are, of course, other issues such as on-road segregated cycle lanes, presumed liability laws, good cyclist and motor vehicle driver education and much more, but those are for another day. Today we can do something to enable many people who would like to cycle to work to leave their bikes safely and shower and change like we can here, leaving towels to dry and locking away our kit. I have crafted this amendment so that ministers can alter the minimum number of employees and the arrangements for them, as well as the description of the cycling facilities that are expected. I have deliberately not gone below 10 employees so as to not make this amendment too onerous, but this can be changed in regulation by Scottish ministers. Those arrangements are based on the Bream good practice standards, which are well respected and well recognised. On the basis that we are in a climate emergency, I note what the minister says about one year from Royal Ascent, but surely that is long enough in view of the fact that the Bream good practice standards are already in existence. The minister last yesterday made, frankly, a woefully ineffective and unadventurous statement on the cycling future. That is an opportunity to do something positive and really robust that will help. I say, let's go to it. I speak in favour of the amendments 1, 3, 2 and 1, 3, 3 in the name of the minister. That is an amendment to the amendment that I put down. I also thank Mary Fee in particular for the support in bringing forward those issues. The bill will do many things and, no doubt, academics and lawyers and historians will look back in years to say where was it effective and where was it ineffective. Although the bill has not had a lot of playtime within the chamber and perhaps not a lot of air, I think that looking back, that will be something that will radically change how we see development and things going forward in the next 10 to 20 years. For those of you who are unaware, change in place toilets open up facilities for older people and for younger people and for disabled people to be able to go and do what you and I take for granted. That will have an economic benefit for the whole of Scotland where we see them, but, more important than that, it will allow families to do things that they are not able to do. If you are unsure what a change in place toilet looks like, we have the privilege of having one here within the Parliament or for those of you who are going to the Royal Highland show over the next three or four days. They have taken the step ahead of the bill to put them in because they see the benefit that it will bring them and that it will bring the people that go to that show and other facilities. I again thank the minister for tidying up my mistakes and I do hope that this will give a clear sign that this Parliament wants families wherever they have, whatever disabilities we have within it, to be able to go out and enjoy facilities across the whole of Scotland. I have already paid tribute to a number of MSPs who have been involved in the change in places toilet campaign. It would be remiss of me not to mention PAMAS, who have been at the forefront of campaigning for a very long time and are finally seeing their efforts come to fruition not only through the bill itself but also through the recent consultation that has been put out by the building standards team. Some things are much better left not to primary legislation but to secondary legislation regulation. I think that Mr Cole-Hamilton has possibly got entirely the wrong end of the stick here because who knows for how long fibre will be the top-notch technology to people's homes. I have no idea how that science is moving forward. I do not know if anybody in this room does, but if that is in primary legislation it is going to be difficult to make that change. Mr MacDonald, in his retort to Mr Cole-Hamilton, was absolutely right because we now have a situation in certain parts of the country where it is very difficult to make the change. I would never accuse Stuart Stevenson of skim-reading anything. He is a man who knows the mind, you shy of everything, because he reads a lot, Presiding Officer. The question therefore is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 133 the name of the minister to move? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 134 the name of the minister to move. I move. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 3 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton to move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We are going to move to a division on amendment 3. This will be a one-minute division. Members will cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is, yes, 24, no, 89. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 202 the name of Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Move, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 202 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a 30-second division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 202 in the name of Claudia Beamish is, yes, 29, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 135 in the name of the minister to move? It moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We will turn now to group 26, Hill Tracks. Can I call amendment 14 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendments 15, 16, 17 and 18, and Andy Wightman to move amendment 14 and speak to all the amendments in this group? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 14. For many years, there have been concerns over the proliferation of bulldo's tracks. Order, please. Keep the quiet noise down. Sorry, Mr Wightman. Built without planning consent to poor standards across some of our most scenic landscapes. A campaign by Scottish Environment Link and led by Rambler Scotland has been running for many, many years. It has undertaken meticulous and detailed work to catalogue the abuse and identify how to affect greater public scrutiny, oversight and regulation. It thought that it had some success with the previous planning minister, Minister Derek Mackay, but he disappointed with timid and ineffectual reforms back in 2014. Now, a new report changing tracks documents the on-going problem and the continuing failure of the planning system to deal with it. Now, as the law stands at the moment—I have Mr Mackay's attention, he will recall—any private way, which is the technical term for such tracks, built for the purpose of agriculture or forestry, is a permitted development under section 30 of the Town Country Planning Scotland out in 1997. Last to say, the principle of development is conceded by law and there is no requirement for full planning consent. Now, I just want to underscore an important point about my amendments 14 to 18. Not one of those amendments affects the permitted development rights that currently exist for agriculture and forestry. I have decided to pick my fights carefully and picking fights with the farming and forestry industry is not something that I had the capacity or inclination to do, so they can rest assured. Any private way, built for the purpose of field sports, however, is not a permitted development and requires full planning consent. In addition, in a national scenic area, there is a requirement that all private ways, with the exception of approved forestry schemes, for whatever purpose need to apply for full planning consent. In response to public concern in 2014, the law was amended by Mr Mackay to require all private ways under the permitted development regime to be notified to the planning authority. However, the remain permitted developments, and there is no means of ultimately refusing their construction. I have lodged amendments 14 to 18 to provide another modest reform of the planning system, to improve transparency and to make some tracks subject to full planning approval that are not just now. None of those amendments bans tracks. In that respect, Scottish Renewables are wrong in their briefing to suggest that they do. All tracks built by members of Scottish Renewables will have been through a full planning consent regime. That is not about whether there should be tracks or not. That is about the process and about how much democratic scrutiny should be applied to proposals that have the capacity to be very damaging. Hill tracks continue to be built for field sports, despite the fact that they require planning consent due to a loophole in the law, whereby the applicant claims that they are for agricultural purposes, which, of course, is a permitted development. They say that there is a few sheep on the hill and that it is very hard for a planning authority to refute, for example, and that it is extremely difficult for them to refuse consent on that basis, and that they would be most likely to end up in court if they did. That loophole, therefore, is closed by amendment 14. It does not change the intention of the law. It merely ensures that the current system in which field sports tracks should apply for full planning consent is respected in practice and cannot be avoided. Amendments 15 to 16 provide that any track that is constructed in national parks on sites of special scientific interests and in Scotland's two national parks will require full consent. Within Scotland's national parks, there has been growing concern about the proliferation of tracks. The Cairngorm national park's current management plan contains a presumption against hill tracks. That was a management plan that was incidentally signed off by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham. However, the park authority does not have the capacity, the planning powers, to ensure that that can be put into effect. Amendment 15 will provide that. Finally, amendment 18 is interesting. National scenic areas are the only designated site where all tracks, with the exception of approved deforestation schemes, require full planning consent. That is the situation now. In fact, that has been the situation since 1987, when the then Scottish Development Department issued Circular 9 1987. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind, enacted the Town and Country Planning Restriction of Permitted Development, National Scenic Areas Scotland, direction 1987. My amendment, and I hope that Conservative members are listening, my amendment merely transfers the good works of Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind, into primary legislation. A fitting legacy, I am sure, Conservative members will agree. I hope therefore that Conservative members can at least support amendment 18, which merely transfers Malcolm Rifkind's intentions into law. If those amendments are passed, they will make no difference to the permitted development rights for agriculture and forestry outside the designated areas covered by amendments 15 to 18. It is worth reflecting on the fact that a short pathway to provide access for wheelchair users to a beauty spot requires full planning consent, but a vehicle track bulldozed up the side of Scotland's prominent mountains does not. It's time that was changed. I move amendment 14. I call Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I wish to speak to those amendments regarding hill tracks and the creation of those tracks. For I do so, I should declare that I am a surveyor and also a member of the RICS who I think have responded to this. I should also refer members to my register of interest in land. Those amendments seek to amend the legislation on class 18 permitted development under the general development order. That allows for the formation, as Mr Wightman has said, an alteration of maintenance of private ways. However, the Parliament should be under no illusion that tracks can be built anywhere for any purpose. They simply cannot. The current process requires the developer to notify the local planning authority of their intention to create a track for agriculture and forestry through a prior notification process. Although there is no public consultation and consent is deemed to be given after 28 days, the planning authority, of course, can object, which they often do, calling the application in full consultation. I will certainly take an intervention from Mr Wightman. Andy Wightman. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Mr Mountain will be, I am sure, aware of the report by the Scottish Environment, Link on changing tracks, which demonstrates based on a large number of prior notifications that have been put in that the process is very ineffectual in providing public scrutiny of those developments. Edward Mountain. Because the process seems to be failed in Mr Wightman's opinion, it does not mean that the process is wrong and needs amending. It means that the people who implement the process have to carry out the process in a proper way. Mr Wightman's amendment on 14 seeks to prevent the building of tracks for shooting and other field sports. Let me be very clear. The current legislation already prevents that, as the current permitted development is for agriculture and forestry, not shooting or field sports. Thus, the amendment is not required and what he is seeking to ban is already banned. Mr Wightman's amendment 15 seeks to remove the permitted development order in national parks. Again, it is not required, as national parks can determine their own policy. If they feel the need to refuse all prior notifications and call them in, making them go through the full planning process, all they have to do is instruct their planning officers to do that. That is the same in the case in amendments 16, 17 and 18. That is why I do not support those amendments because I do not believe that they are required. What is required, Mr Wightman, is that planning authorities do the job that they are supposed to do with the legislation that they have. If they did that, that would not be an issue. Permitted development rights are set out in the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Scotland Order 1992, as amended over the years. That is commonly referred to as the GPDO. There are permitted development rights for agriculture and forestry in private ways, but, and I should stress this, there are not and never have been permitted development rights for shooting and field sports. I understand the concerns around hilltracks and their potential for negative impacts on visual immunity and the environment. However, we must also consider the needs of farmers and foresters who need access to their land for their regular operations, including planting and harvesting, and reaching remote grazing areas—national parks, national scenic areas. I would be grateful for you taking an interruption. I wondered if you felt that it would be appropriate that there should be a standard laid out for the construction of the tracks, which would provide good guidance to people who are doing it, and that would further enhance what the planners can do as far as people who do not build them correctly. I will come to that point at the very end, if you do not mind. National parks, national scenic areas and triple SIs cover something like 20 per cent of Scotland. Those areas are not empty landscapes. Removing permitted development rights in all that land would impact on significant numbers of rural businesses. In areas that are often economically fragile already. During the course of stage 2, and even today and yesterday with Ms Grant's amendments, one of the things that I am sure that we want to see is the repopulation of certain areas that we do not want to tip folk over the edge and make their living, in particular parts of Scotland, unsustainable. I agree that we need to look at that again and to make sure that we have the balance right. Maybe I will take on board some of the suggestions that Mr Mountain has said about creating a standard for those kinds of ways. Unlike most planning legislation, which is largely procedural, permitted development orders grant or limit planning permission, decisions about permitted development rights need to be taken following careful consideration of the impacts, whether that be impacts on the environment or impacts on people's needs to be able to go about their daily business. For that reason, the place to consider amending permitted development rights is through the GPDO and not by amendment to the bill. That allows for a thorough consultation that gives all parties a fair chance to have their views heard and with full impact assessments. The Government has already committed to a wide review of the GPDO following the completion of the bill. We will consider the potential for changes to permitted development for private ways and I can assure the chamber that we will get started on that quickly. I would ask members to reject those amendments and allow us to give proper consideration to all of the impacts before making such changes. I call on Andy Wightman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 14. Mr Mountain referred to banning things. Rather than earlier amendments and short-term lets, the planning system does not ban anything. I have no power to ban anything and this Parliament has no power to ban anything through the planning system. What we are trying to do is make sure that the planning system can operate effectively. It is up to local authority, planning authorities, to decide for themselves whether they are going to grant applications, refuse applications, grant them with modifications or not. Let us just be very clear about that. He says correctly—and I made this point in my opening remarks—that field sports are not a permitted development. The problem is that the system is being widely abused because land that is used for field sports is often and frequently used for, for example, sheep on grouse moors that act as tickmops. The very presence of those sheep means that that land is used for agriculture and people are putting in hill tracks for field sports but pretending that it is for agriculture. A very good example of that was at Leadgown estate in Wester Ross, where the Highland Council was assured by the landowner that it was for agriculture. One year later, the estate was put on the market and in the sales particulars they crowed about the network of tracks that were available to permit shooting on the estate. That is an actual example of blatant abuse of the current permitted development, I will. Mr Whiteman, thank you very much for taking the intervention. Do you not agree with me that if a planning authority is seriously concerned that the track is not being built for agricultural policy—sorry—agricultural forestry, it could call in the planning application and demand that the applicant makes a full application so that it can be properly scrutinised? Do you deny that? Andy Wightman. They did not have the—they attempted to do that but they could not provide the evidence that would refute the claim that this is for agriculture without ending up in court. That is because of the way that the law applies. Amendment 14 is a reworded provision that makes it much clearer land on which you require a full planning application. The minister again said that, yes, exactly, there are no permitted developments rights for field sports, but I have just made the point in respect of Mr Mountain's comments. He knows that there is no way under the current regime that this can be properly enforced. I will take an intervention. Mike Rumbitt. Will he agree with me that clarifying—that is what I think this is doing—clarifying the law in this way would take the controversy away and that this is not an attack on shooting in field sports, but it is a proposal to make sure that the process of building tracks are properly looked at. Andy Wightman. Yes, I welcome that intervention. Mr Rumbitt was perfectly correct. Many planning authorities are attempting to deal with this problem, but they have not got the effect of powers or resources to do so. All I am attempting to do is make sure that the process facilitates an informed decision that is subject to full public scrutiny. In many instances, they will consent to those tracks. I do not have a view as to whether those tracks should be built. That is a matter properly for planning authorities. The minister says that he is going to have a look again at this through the GDPO. The problem is that we had a look in 2012. No meaningful reforms came forward. I am a member of the Scottish Parliament. I am not in the Government. I cannot bring forward secondary legislation on permitted development rights. I do not know when they will ever be brought forward. I have no idea what the Government's intentions are here. This topic has been on the political agenda now for over two years. Ministers have had plenty of opportunity to say that they are going to do something through this bill, and they have chosen not to. Even the modest reform of extending the direction that exists over national scenic areas to national parks would be a modest reform to address the very concerns that planning officers have in those national parks, where they try to create a presumption but, at the end of the day, they cannot effectively implement that. I will wind up there. Thank you very much, Mr Wightman. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 14. The result of the vote on amendment 14 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 30, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 15 and ask Mr Wightman to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 15. The result of the vote on amendment 15 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 30, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 16 and ask Andy Wightman to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. Amendment 16. The result of the vote on amendment 16 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 29, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 17 and ask Andy Wightman to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 17 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 30, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 18 in the name of Andy Wightman to move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. Amendment 18. The result of the vote on amendment 18 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 30, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 203 in the name of Claudia Beamish? Claudia Beamish to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 203 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 203. The result of the vote on amendment 203 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes, 29, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We are going to turn now to group 27, the calling of applications by Scottish ministers. I will call amendment 136 and 137 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move amendment 136. I will speak to both. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Occasionally, there are reasons for a planning minister to call in and decide a planning application. This is a long-established power in the planning system exercised by successive governments. It is a responsibility that I take seriously and a power that I use very, very sparingly. I fully respect the lead role that is played by our planning authorities, and it is absolutely right that the vast majority of planning applications are decided by them. Sometimes, though, circumstances arise, but it may be more appropriate for further scrutiny and decision at the national level, because in some way the proposed development raises issues of national importance. Those issues cannot be easily or comprehensively listed in advance. It comes down to the individual circumstances of individual cases. Section 16A was added to the bill at stage 2 through an amendment by Mark Ruskell. It requires ministers to set out the possible circumstances in which they would consider calling in applications and regulations. I agree that there can and should be greater clarity of the circumstances, which may lead to calling in, but that can be much more reasonably and helpfully explained through the open text of a statement than it can be in legislation. Mark Ruskell and I have discussed the change, and I am grateful for his input and agreement that the requirement can be handled through a ministerial statement. That is what amendments 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 do, and I hope that members will support them. I move amendment 1.3.6. Thank you very much, and no other member wishes to contribute, so the question is that amendment 1.3.6 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 1.3.7? Thank you. The question is that amendment 1.3.7 be agreed to. Are we agreed? I turn now to group 28, the determination of applications, and I call amendment 204 in the name of Alec Rowley, grouped with amendment 138, and Alec Rowley to move amendment 204. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In moving amendment 204, amendment 204 would require the planning authorities must record whether a decision on an application complies with the local development plan, and if not, why that decision was in the public interest and in line with planning policy guidance. Amendment 204 was submitted in response to criticism of section 16b, which was introduced at stage 2, to require planning authorities to state in a decision notice whether a planning decision complies with the local development plan. Such a provision is incredibly important to supporting a plan-led system, allowing for full transparency regarding how many applications the authority has accepted that contravene the local development plan. It is vital that both the community and developers have faith in the validity of the plan, otherwise there is no incentive to engage in the development of the local development plan. That amendment would give that transparency, and I think that that is important. Thank you. Amendment 138 removed section 16b in the bill. 16b was added at stage 2 following an amendment tabled by myself, and its intention at the time was to form the basis for triggering a reformed appeal system, which is the substance of which we will debate in the next group. Simply put, section 16b in the bill requires a statement to accompany each planning decision outlining whether the planning authority considers the decision to be in accordance with the development plan. Depending on the answer to that question, the relevant appeal right to be discussed in the next group would be triggered. Regardless of the fate of those appeal rights, and I am not expecting them to pass a Parliament to approve them, we will debate them in the next group. I would nevertheless urge members to support the retention of section 16b and vote against amendment 138. Like many members, and Alex Rowley has mentioned this, I want a proper plan-led system. The extent of discretion in the current planning system undermines, in my view, such a plan-led system. I know that we differ on the extent to which we should have discretion in the planning system. I accept that there should always be an element of discretion. In my view, there is too much, but regardless of where we stand on that question, retaining section 16b will enable us to capture statistics that will be useful in monitoring the extent to which determinations are being made that are compliant with a plan or not, and therefore be able to take a view as to the extent to which we in practice have a plan-led system. Alex Rowley's amendment 204 amends section 16b in a manner that I do not think is helpful. Subsection a merely rewards section 16b, and b is unnecessary, in my view, as all decisions will be, will narrate in some detail as to why they have been made anyway. I would ask Alex Rowley not to press amendment 204, but, if he does, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Presiding Officer, I recognise that the real motive behind those provisions is not to bring clarity to the reasons for decisions, but to provide that hook for the amendments on appeal rights, which we are to discuss next. Superficially on its own, section 16b seems fairly minor and straightforward, setting out something that a planning authority must state in its decision notice. However, an authority must always have regard to both the provisions of the development plan and any other material considerations when making a decision on a planning application. That is a long-standing requirement at the very heart of our planning system. The decision on every application is to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Decision on applications always involves the decision maker reaching a conclusion about whether and how the proposed development accords with the development plan and considering that alongside an assessment of other material considerations to decide whether they individually or collectively outweigh the position with development plan conformity. Authorities already must give reasons for their decisions and reports, which are published on the register of applications, setting out the provisions of the development plan and the other material considerations to which they have had regard. Explaining only the position in relation to the development plan in the decision notice will not increase transparency, it will only create confusion by giving a partial picture of the reasons for the decision. I note that Mr Riley has attempted to address that issue by requiring further information to be included, but without using the term material considerations. During the passage of the bill, nobody has proposed removing material considerations from the decision process and rightly so, so I am not clear why people are so shy of giving them their place. For those reasons, I ask members to reject amendment 204 and to support amendment 138. Thank you very much, minister. This is where I parked company with the minister. It had to happen. Amendment 138 strips out something that we put in at stage 2, which is a very simple matter that says that councils must state why a development is or is not in accordance with a development plan. It always used to be the case that they had to do this. It is not onerous. They have to give reasons in a decision notice in any case. I disagree with the minister. It helps transparency, so we will vote against amendment 138, but we will also vote against amendment 204, because Mr Riley's wording is not quite right, and it goes too far. We will vote against both. I think that the important point that the minister said about the real motive, he needs to tell me what the real motive he thinks is. The bottom line is that a front-led planning system that engages communities, put a lot of energy, a lot of time, a lot of resources into and before the ink is dry on the local development plan, developers come in with an application that completely ignores the development plan, and that is why people have lost faith in the planning process. I spell it out in my speech. It is fine in terms of the development plan and the deviation from the development plan, but, if it does not spell out the material considerations for the reasoning about the decision that Mr Riley does not want to say, that is not open and transparent. That is why I think that amendment 204 in his name is not right. I think that the fact that it looks like the minister is going to lose in terms of amendment 138, because we will be certainly voting against that. I will not be moving the motion in my name to amendment 204. Thank you very much, Mr Riley. Is the chamber happy for Mr Riley to withdraw that amendment? Yes, we are. Can I call amendment 138 in the name of the minister? Minister to move. That is moved, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members to be cast their votes now. That will be a one-minute division again, the first division following a debate. The result of the vote on amendment 138 in the name of the minister is yes, 58, no, 60. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. We are going to turn now to group 29, which is the right to appeal against planning decisions. Can I call amendment 160 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendments 161, 205 and 223? Andy Wightman to move amendment 160, and to speak to all the other amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 160. As members know, there has been a long debate about whether to reform appeal rights. Given the length of the debate, it is now six hours and 42 minutes. I do not intend to rehearse in full all those arguments once more, but I think that it is important to put on record in a stage 3 debate, once again in the second planning bill of this Parliament, the core arguments. Current appeal rights in the planning system date from the 1947 act. Applicants then, typically landowners themselves, were suspicious of the ability of public authorities to make decisions about development. Local authorities had just got this power in the nationalisation of development that came under the 1947 act. Rightly, landowners were suspicious of the ability and motives of the new public authorities with rights over their own land. Because the right to develop one's own property was being removed from the owner, it was conceded at the time, correctly in my view, that a right of appeal should be granted against any refusal to grant planning consent. That was 70 years ago. Today, we have a plan, almost a plan-led system, not quite a plan-led system. We are moving to one, but it is a much more plan-led system that was in 1947. There is really no requirement for appeals to be universally available to applicants. Equally, there is a strong argument to provide a limited right of appeal to third parties. I think that the debate on third party right of appeal has moved on since the 2006 act. It is now focused on equalising the rights of appeal, by first providing a limited right of appeal to third parties, but also to restrict the existing rights of appeal to applicants. In a proper plan-led system and such things do exist in continental Europe, there should be no rights of appeal at all, and there are none. The plan should make clear what is permitted and what is not, but we are still in the world, as we have just heard in the previous section, of discretion, material considerations and allocated sites and all the rest of it. My amendments 116 and 161 are identical to those lodged at stage 2, when they were rejected by three votes against two votes for and two abstentions by Conservative members. I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for allowing those to come back at stage 3, when we can perhaps resolve the Conservatives' own abstention at the point that they were unsure about where they wanted to go, so we will learn where they have got to in a few moments. Amendment 160 provides that, where a planning authority give notice that an application is not in accordance with a development plan under the provisions of section 716b, which we have just voted to retain, then the existing appeal right of applicants would be removed. In other words, there is no right of appeal on an application that violates the development plan. The right of appeal remains open to applicants where planning authority refuse consent for an application, which is in accordance with the plan. Amendment 161 introduces a similar right to third parties to appeal determinations where consent is granted to an application that is not in accordance with the plan and where decision is made on land in which the planning authority has an interest. Those amendments are very tightly framed and, in my view, will build in trust to the planning system and move us more towards a plan-led system. Now, as I said, the debate has matured over recent years. It is abundantly clear that the current system of appeals is undermining local democratic decision making by allowing legitimate decisions made by planning authorities to be appealed against the wishes of the local communities, against the wishes of officials, against the wishes of members of the planning authority and against the planning authority when they wish to uphold agreed plans. I note that Alex Rowley has lodged amendment 205 on third party right of appeal, but none no amendment on the existing right of appeal. Nevertheless, we will support amendment 205 if my amendments 161 and 166 are rejected. Thank you very much. I call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 205 in the other amendment. The amendments 205 and 203 introduce equal rights of appeal. Developers and communities can appeal when a decision is approved that does not comply with the local development plan. On appeal rights, our guiding principle is that the planning system is not operating on a level playing field and that the system is in desperate need of reform. However, equal rights of appeal was a notable omission from the bill as first drafted. Our proposed amendments give communities a right of appeal when development is approved contrary to the local development plan. Our proposals also seek to strengthen the plan-led system by limiting the applicant's right of appeal. Despite promises made in 2006, the problem of a lack of community engagement in the planning system has endured. The Government's own review concluded that front loading consultation had not worked and during the committee sessions ahead of the bill, City of Edinburgh Council argued that the limited system of front loading that we have has not been enough to generate community trust and confidence in the planning system. If planning authorities are to create places that people want to live in, there must be early and meaningful engagement of communities and real community influence in local development plans. However, as it stands, early engagement could take place and be reflected in the local development plan but have no influence on final outcomes because of developers' right of appeal. Currently, the only route for the public is to take court action and judicial review is too expensive for most people and can place a large burden on local communities. With such a weak link between public input and decision making and no mechanisms for the public to hold developers to account, there is very little incentive for the public to get involved in planning. A local development plan led right of appeal, as we are proposing, will encourage both communities and developers to get involved in the drafting because they know that they will be subject to the plan at the end of the process. It is disappointing that this bill has made no meaningful attempt to shift some power away from developers and ministers into the hands of communities. That is an issue that we will continue to campaign on because communities up and down Scotland who have participated in the local development plan have given up their time, their resources to have an input into how their communities can be shaped and then see before the ink is dry on those plans. Developers are coming forward and completely ignoring the plans and batting their heads with their proposals. That is not right. People have been left feeling very bitter and very betrayed who did compete completely in that process. Therefore, I would urge. I thank the member for taking intervention. I know that his last comments, people being left feeling disappointed and betrayed. I mean no disrespect by the comments that I will be making, but I, a number of years ago, the MSP tried to introduce a third party right of appeal and a private member's bill and the Labour Party opposed it, so I feel quite betrayed in that particular part. I think that that is the point in the very excellent introduction that Andy Whiteman made. Time moves on. It must be the experience. Surely it must be the experience that most MSPs in this place who are shouting and waving their hands, Mr Doran. Surely it is the experience where you have come across planning applications in communities and the community has had no say. Their left feeling powerless. I am not going to stand here today because some Labour MSP back years ago did not support your private member's bill and say that we should not get it right this time round. Communities up and down Scotland, if we want to have the people, if we want to have the confidence in the planning system, then we need to address that issue. I understand that the Tories and SNP are going to come together today to block this and not listen to communities. I hope that you will pay the price for that. I am speaking in this section of the amendments because this is an issue of huge importance to my constituents. They have been in touch with me in huge numbers in advance of the bill. The reality is that, for my constituents and communities across Scotland, they feel that the planning system is simply stacked against them. Indeed, at a recent local meeting that I was at, I had to correct someone. People were trying to describe the planning system as a marathon not a sprint, but the reality is that for too many people it is neither of those things. It is a siege. The reality is that communities have to get their activities, their actions, their co-ordinated campaigns right and defend every single time, whereas developers only need to get that right once. The experience of communities, both in my constituency and elsewhere, is that they just receive application after application for the same sites and they have no redress. That is why it matters, because that is the experience of Craig House, and it is certainly the worry that my constituents have regarding Midmar Paddock and the Fields in Libertyn. The reality is that the planning system is not infallible. That is why appeals exist in the first place. If it is right for developers to be able to appeal planning decisions, to question the decisions and the basis on which they were made, surely it is also right for communities to be able to question those self-same decisions. That is not an unfettered veto. It is a proportionate measure, as both Alex Rowley and Andy Wightman have set out for communities to be able to, with reference to the plan, question the decisions that have been made. Again, as Alex Rowley has pointed out, front loading simply has not worked. Ultimately, that is a way that we can incentivise developers and indeed planners to consult more adequately to get that right, because they will recognise that there is this ability for communities to appeal. Ultimately, that is about upholding a plan-led system and making sure that communities have a stake in that. Following my involvement in a number of local planning controversies, I became aware that the planning was the route of many controversies not only in the area that I represent, but throughout the country as a whole. Time and again, applications have been approved despite contrigible local opposition. Many of those involved in these campaigns, interest groups as well as ordinary folk, believe that the system to be unfair and heavily skewed in favour of developers. They point out rightly, in my view, the inherent unfairness of a system in which developers have the right to appeal when applications are rejected whilst objectors do not have the same right when applications are approved. The imposition of controversial applications in the face of considerable community opposition has engenderd increased bitterness and alienation with the political system. To restore public confidence not only with the planning system but with the political system as a whole, we must trust the people and give them the power to have real influence and decisions that affect our local communities. I believe that introducing a third party right of appeal would be an excellent first step in the process. Those could have been my words, as they reflect my experience as an activist, as a councillor and as an MSP, but they are not my words. They are the words of Sandra White when she introduced her third party planning rights of appeal bill in 2003, a bill sponsored by Alec Neill in London Fabiani in Christine Grahame. I am sure that men and women of principle and in the interests of consistency will support our amendments today. At that time, when I was an activist, I supported her bill against the Labour Government because I believed that it was right. Today, I will support this amendment. I wonder if the same people sitting in the Government back benches will stick to their principles and support it today, because change is desperately needed. All the power in the planning system lies with developers. They have the money to engage consultants to hire PR companies to have pre-application exhibitions and to buy-off opposition. They have the right to appeal against refusals, and they often do, but communities don't. How can anyone think that this is fair? The minister earlier referred to people's human rights. How does he think that that respects people's human rights? In my then council ward, I had 16 applications for large-scale industrial development in a very short space of time, landfill sites, opencast coal sites, mineral extraction, recycling operations and numerous wind farm applications. Many of those were speculative. Some were opposed by the community with hundreds and hundreds of objections. They were opposed by neighbours, planners and councillors and then appealed and approved by reporters acting on behalf of ministers. How on earth can that be fair? It happens as every one of us knows and every one of our constituencies across the country. There is no level playing field. The cards are stacked against communities from the outset and it is unfair and it is unjust and it is wrong. I say to SNP members today that you have the choice to side with communities and introduce fairness into a heavily skewed system or you can side with the Conservative party in the big business and landed interests who want to keep things as they are because it suits them nicely. It is clear in the bill that many cosy deals are being done between the Tory and SNP front benches. If members choose to side with the Conservative party and the SNP over this planning issue of rights of appeal, given the thousands of emails that we have heard from people in the community who are concerned about this, they will pay a heavy price, I would say. Murdo Fraser is to be followed by Monica Lennon. Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to speak on the amendments in this group and the question of third party right of appeal. This is a perennial issue. It is not the first time that this Parliament has considered the matter. I am a veteran of the debates in session 2 of this Parliament. The 2006 planning act, as it became, when we discussed these very points and we heard passionate speeches by the ones that we just heard from Daniel Johnson, Neil Findlay and Alec Rowley on these very issues, not being made from the Labour benches but being made from the SNP benches, because back in that time we had a Labour Liberal Administration in this place, a Labour Liberal Administration strongly holding the line against these calls for equal right of appeal, and we saw the SNP in opposition making the arguments why they should be brought in. Now, of course, the positions have switched over completely, and the Labour Party in opposition is arguing for this and the SNP in government is arguing against it. There is one word, Mr Findlay, for the Labour position today, and that is opportunism, because you did not take that view when you were in party in government. Of course, I will give way. Neil Findlay. I did take that position. I argued against the Labour government at the time, so you are wrong in that, and admit you are wrong. Murdo Fraser. Well, Mr Findlay, I appreciate that you were not in this chamber at that time, but those seats were full of your Labour Party colleagues at that time, holding the line against third party right of appeal. In contrast, all those parties slithering and swithering around on this issue, the Scottish Conservatives have been very clear in our view—no, not just now, thank you—we will not support third party right of appeal, and we do so for very good reasons. Let me spell out what our view is. I am very sympathetic to the calls that we hear from community groups about the planning system. I am very sympathetic to the view that there is a lack of say in planning decisions. I am very sympathetic to the argument that they feel that the planning system is weighted against them. Developers can come in well-resourced developers with deep pockets, with teams of lawyers and planning consultants, and against that, the community, very often just a group of private individuals with limited means, are having to fight against this juggernaut of developers, and they feel that it is an unfair fight. I recognise the points that Daniel Johnson made about the way that communities often feel about the planning process, but third party right of appeal is not the answer to that problem, not least because it comes at the end of the process when decisions have already been made. It is too late then to kick the thing towards Scottish ministers, in my view. That is the wrong time to try to address those concerns. I will give way to Mr Rowley first. Mr Rowley, is he aware of, in his own region, the fight by the community of Aberdor, a community that has participated in the whole front-loading right from the start of the process that then went to the local area committee of democratically elected councillors, that his own party has two councillors in Aberdor, both of which have condemned the fact that, despite it going through the local development plan, the developer came along, put in an application, appealed it to Scottish ministers, and that housing application has been awarded. Is he aware of that? Murdo Fraser. Yes, Mr Rowley, I am aware of that situation. I could quote him numerous other similar examples, but I do not believe that that is the answer. If you bear with me, I will explain why I do not believe that that is the answer, and I will explain what we think the answer is. The other problem with an equal right of appeal, or even a limited third-party right of appeal, is that, as to the planning system, there is additional delay and additional cost. We need to have a country that is open for business and open for development. We are going to have a growing economy and we need to be encouraging development in the right places. Members in the chamber will be well aware of that. We will have been lobbied by representatives from right across the business sector as to why bringing that in will simply complicate things further. The biggest concern that people have about the planning system on all sides is the complexity of it and the question of delay. The solution is not to add an extra layer of complexity and to add yet more delays into the system. I do not support those amendments, but I recognise that there is a serious issue to be dealt with. We are proposing a better approach, because we will, in a short time, be discussing amendment 146, in the name of my colleague Graham Simpson, which introduces the concept of mediation in disputes between communities and developers and encourages constructive engagement early in the process. It seems to be that that is a better way to proceed—I am just closing, Mr Finlay. It seems to me that is a better way to proceed because it allows those issues to be dealt with early on in the process, rather than being tacked on at the end and adding an extra level of complexity and cost and delay. I would encourage members to reject those amendments, and we, at least, will be consistent with the view that we held in 2006. In this debate, we have heard a lot about power. Planning is very much weird, and power is exercise. We know about the stakeholders in the debate and the whole issue that have lots of power and lots of rights in those who do not have so much. We are here to speak for our communities. We have a planning system that approves over 96 per cent of planning applications, so we have a very positive and permissive planning system. Many of us have talked about the fact that we want that to be a plan-led approach, but, as Andy Wightman has spelled out, it is a highly discretionary system. Labour, in this debate around the bill, has argued for a plan-led system, but also a rights-based system. I was not around the Parliament in 2005-2006 when the planning bill was passed. I was working as a planning officer then. A lot has changed in terms of how we talk about community empowerment and how the relationship has changed between central and local government. We are trying to get away from that top-down approach, but there are people who would argue that there should not be a appeal system at all. It is right that we have checks and balances, but right now the opportunity for appeal rests only with developers. Communities do feel that it is unfair. We have put forward a proportionate solution. If you fall out with your neighbour, you get to put in an appeal system. I am listening to the point about mediation, but that is a little bit patronising. We are talking about big proposals such as incinerators. I know that in this chamber colleagues such as Richard Lyle, Claire Hawke, Christina McKelvie, Tholta McGregor, James Kelly and Claudia Beamish have all had some experience of incinerators, I think, Aileen Campbell too. We have situations where developers with deep pockets are able to make not just repeat appeals but repeat applications and communities feel worn down by that. I really do not believe that mediation is the answer to that. I am sure that my colleague Alec Rowley will not mind me saying that I take the slight issue with the framing of the third party rights. I think that we should be talking about equal rights of appeal and Andy Wightman's point about equalising is really important. The point is that this is not 2005 or 2006. We have to look at and reflect on how well planning legislation is working. I believe that colleagues in the chamber at the time would have looked at the proposals around front-loading and hoped that that would have gone some way to change the culture. Mark Ruskell, I am forgiving way. Would the member agree with me that an unlimited right of appeal for developers undermines those good developers who are working with the local development planning process, are doing all that front-loading work and do have sites in the local development plan to develop? It is actually penalising private business as well. I think that that unfettered right of appeal for applicants can cause a lot of the delay and the uncertainty, particularly for neighbouring sides, because the reality is that some of those appeals are in the system for a very long time, in some case years. If I can just make the point about the incinerator in Whitehill, which people have heard me talk about before and we have had a member's debate, that is an on-going issue that has been going on since 2013, which was a year after I became the local councillor in that area, or one of them. I have to say that colleagues across the political divide worked very closely on that. The late councillor Lynn Adams, an SNP councillor, was sadly passed away. Lynn was instrumental in working with the community, with myself and other Labour colleagues in Margaret Mitchell, who I did not mention earlier. I think that there is a lot of unity around those issues. We have a situation in which repeat appeals, repeat applications—I know that the minister has heard me say that before—but how can it be fair that those applicants keep coming back when it is not in accordance with the local development plan? It is not in accordance with the Scottish plan and policy, so there is no local or national justification in policy terms or in strategy for those applications. However, the remedy to communities is to try and raise funds to go for a judicial review, which we know is a very limited route in any case. The minister will know that the applicant— Can I ask Ms Lennon to bring her on to a conclusion? It has just withdrawn that appeal, but that is not the end of the story because they have dug a trench and they have an existing consent. The point is that for communities there is no peace of mind and there is no incentive to get back out there and get involved. If we want front loading and communities to be genuinely part of plan making, we have to get the balance right. I am afraid that we do not. The previous planning act has not achieved that. We have not seen that planning transformation. We have not seen the resource go into community empowerment. I strongly urge colleagues to listen to communities, to listen to planning democracy and to support the amendments in Andy Wightman and Alec Rowley's name. I had not intended to speak on those amendments and I will try to do so briefly. However, the 2006 act has been mentioned repeatedly in the discussion. I was a member of the parliamentary committee that scrutinised that piece of legislation when it was going through in my first two or three years as a member of the Scottish Parliament. I well remember the arguments around appeal rights. I made the case alongside colleagues from a number of political parties that if we wanted successful, active engagement up front, community consultation, participation in the early stages of the planning process, we were more likely to achieve that if communities knew and developers knew that at the end of the day the community would have a right of appeal. We were more likely to undermine that active up front engagement by continuing with the unlevel playing field that we have at the moment with a developer appeal right and no community appeal right. I suspect that that is not a matter of disagreement between Labour and the SNP. I know that people have had a lot of fun winding each other up about the fact that parties have changed their position. I think that that is a difference between Government and backbenchers principally. I suspect that it is always going to be the case that a planning minister of any political party will find themselves under pressure from several servants or from vested interests and say that appeal rights are not the right thing to do. I think that that is what happened to the Labour Party at the time. I suspect that backbenchers who are more interested in representing their communities of any political persuasion will find themselves drawn to the argument for fairer appeal rights. If I remember rightly, Pauline McNeill and Sandra White very often found themselves on the same side of that argument against the position of the Government of the day. I hope that members who take seriously their interests in representing communities will continue to make that argument against the Government of the day. When that bill was passed without community appeal rights, I will remember that members across the political parties, including a large number of SNP members at public meetings and hostings, then and since said that they had not given up on the principle of levelling that playing field, would continue to make the case for equalising appeal rights, including community appeal rights. I would just ask the minister if he really asked his own party colleagues to break those long-standing promises that have been made to communities over many, many years. I was not intending to speak either, but as a previous community activist before becoming an MSP, having fought for seven years alongside an ex-mining village and as a community councillor, alongside Clyde Slydd District Council, to try to stop an opencast application. People were worn down and worn down and worn down, and that happens again and again and again. It can be, as Monica Lennon has said, a war of attrition, and it is between very, very unequal groups. Often communities can feel exhausted by repeat applications and by the difficulties of raising money to get to judicial reviews such as this happening, and has happened with Patterson's and Crag in my constituency and region recently for gravel extraction on the Clyde. Often applications are made near marginalised communities, such as happened with the opencast in the past. Farmers were worn down and, frankly, gradually bought off by the company. That is not a place where anyone should be in a civilised country. It is shameful that the Scottish Government is not on the side of the people and an application for development in the right place is nothing to fear, and I feel very sad that this day has come in our Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government's position on third-party right of appeal has been clear and consistent. Quite simply, we do not support its introduction nor do we support any restrictions on the current right of appeal. I want people to be involved. I want people to be truly involved in the positive planning of their areas, as well as having opportunities to say what they think, and people need to know that they have been properly listened to. I will give way to Mr Findlay. Very clear language. The minister tells us what is fair about a developer having the right and a community not. One of the simple things is that I believe in local democracy. A developer does not elect councillors. Communities do elect councillors, and they are the ones who are taking democratic decisions that they were elected to do. I want people to be involved. The bill already brings new opportunities. Mr Findlay was a councillor at one point. Obviously, he and I believe that councillors are elected to take democratic decisions. In that case, he wants to overturn the decisions that are taken by councillors. I have had enough of Mr Findlay. The minister may not be aware that many local authorities councillors make decisions, but they are undemocratically overturned by a reporter acting on behalf of the Government. The bill already brings new opportunities. People will be able to engage meaningfully through development planning and local place plans. They will give a greater opportunity to genuinely influence the future of their places. We are also committed to improving on the current arrangements for pre-application consultation on major developments following on from the bill. We still have to discuss proposals that are before us today to support mediation. Those open up planning to positive engagement at the right time to help influence development. I am certain that introducing new rights of appeal or restricting the current right of appeal is not the way to go. In fact, I am convinced that that would be counterproductive. It would create conflict and undermine efforts to improve trust in the planning system. It would add uncertainty. It would undermine local democracy. It would be divisive and there would be no impetus to engage earlier. Crucially, restricting current appeals could deny our communities much of the investment that they need. Many of our much-needed homes and the places where we work and spend our leisure time only exist because they have been approved on appeal. Those amendments would have appeal rights dependent on a statement made by the planning authority as to accordance with the development plan. As I have just been making clear, this is only half the story of how the decision is made. It can come down to a matter for interpretation of complex information and careful professional judgment, which may not be universally accepted. That approach also misses vital ability of our planning system to recognise changing circumstances. There can be very good reasons for making a decision that is not in accordance with the development plan. For example, where an emerging draft development plan contains far more current and relevant policy intent than the ageing plan that it is about to replace, or where a worthwhile development opportunity presents itself perhaps following the closure of a major employer. An additional right of appeal may on the face of it appear to promise a lot to communities and individuals, but I am concerned that those claims are misguided. The reality is that an additional right of appeal will simply add time, cost, procedure and conflict to an already stretched planning service, and there are better options for people. At the end of the day, an equal right of appeal, all that would mean would be reporters who have been cited here today as being all bad, it seems, taking the decisions or me taking the decisions. I would be much happier for people to become involved at the very beginning and no conflict at the end. Therefore, I urge members to reject all of those amendments. I want to call on Andy Wightman to wind up in this group. I say this to all sincerity. The continuing demands for equalising rights of appeal are designed not to increase bureaucracy or complexity, but to strengthen a plan-led system. It is in my view that, ultimately, as we move towards a plan-led system, we can abolish appeal rights completely. The arguments have been well put and I am glad that they are on the record once a decade when we get to debate a planning bill. I welcome the passionate contributions from Monica Lennon, Neil Findlay, Claudia Beamish and others. I would just observe in relationship to the debate leading up to the 2006 act. Much of that debate was concerned with the fact that that act would improve upfront engagement and community participation. Those arguments were used to refute the need for any reform of the appeal system, but that has not happened. Very little, if any, of that has transpired. Therefore, the arguments that were made in 2005 remain as valid today, if not more so than they did then. Mr Murdo Fraser said that early engagement is important and, indeed, it is. However, if you engage in good faith early on, only to find that a plan that you have been heavily involved in developing is upheld by the planning officials, it is upheld by those local councillors that you have elected in a democracy and then it is overturned by the minister, how do you expect people to feel? That was the point that was made by the minister in response to Neil Findlay. He said that communities directly elect councillors and, of course, they do, but we still have a situation, as I have just said, when a plan is very clear, when applications come in that violate it, when the officials refuse, when the councillors they have elected uphold it and then it is overruled by the minister on appeal. If we do not reform the system of appeals, we are undermining trust in what remains a slow process of building a plan-led system. I will leave my remarks there. I think that it has been a useful reiteration of those arguments. Clearly, we have not got there, but I look forward to coming back in 10 years' time to see if we can make some progress there. The question is whether amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We are removed to vote, and this will be a one-minute division on amendment 160. Members have been voted now. The result of the vote on amendment 160 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 25, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I ask Andy Wightman if he wishes to move amendment 161. That is moved. The question is that amendment 161 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 161 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 25, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is not agreed. Can I call amendment 205 in the name of Alec Rowley to move? I move, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 205 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. Can we move to a vote? Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 205 in the name of Alec Rowley is yes, 25, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Now, before we turn to the next group, I am going to call a short suspension for 10 minutes. Just to let members know, it does not look like we are going to be able to finish the amendment consideration stage today. I would like to ask the business managers if they would all agree to meet with me just outside the chamber, and we will have a short discussion, but we will have a short suspension for 10 minutes, then we will resume in 10 minutes' time. Okay, colleagues, we are going to resume, if that is all right, and just to promise resumed, just to give you a very quick update on where we are. The potentially is up to an hour and 45 minutes or an hour and a half of business is still to go. We are going to try to make progress. That essentially depends on you, so I will try to keep your content, your comments concise. I will certainly call every member that is wishing to speak to, that that is down to speak, in other words moving an amendment or applying to amendment, but I would think about which contributions you want to make. We do not want to erode our time tomorrow. We are going to try and go on to 7.30 tonight, 7.30, at which point we will stop consideration of amendments and we will proceed with decision time and then members' business. I am very conscious that there are a number of events taking place in the Parliament tonight, so I know that members will want to attend some of those. That is the rough plan, and we are going to proceed now with group 30, the meaning of material considerations. Can I call amendment 139 in the name of the minister and minister to move and speak to the amendment? Material considerations play an important role in decisions on planning applications, enabling authorities to take account of the individual circumstances of each case. However, trying to predict everything that could be deemed as a material consideration for every case under the various sections of the 1997 act is an impossible task. It could also restrict what planning authorities could consider or require them to consider issues that may not be relevant. Leaving the phrase undefined to means that is for the decision maker to work out what needs to be taken into account, ultimately any dispute would be for the courts as whether something is or is not material is already a question of law. The law society welcomes this amendment as it agrees that defining the term could result in it being too restrictive or too wide to carry out any useful purpose as Mr Whiteman accepted at stage 2. A short explanation of how the principles of material considerations work is contained within our development management circular, we will revisit the guidance after the bill and I move amendment 139 and I hope that members will support it. We need a plan-led system, one with less discretion and ambiguity. Material considerations can override the development plan and yet our nowhere defined section 16d of the bill was introduced by me at stage 2 and was supported by the committee. It requires that material considerations be set out in regulations to bring more certainty and strength in a plan-led system, but it will be up to ministers how prescriptive they wish to be in such regulations. I see no good reason for not doing so. Amendment 139 removes section 16d and therefore we will be opposing it. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 139 and members pay vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 139 in the name of Kevin Stewart is, yes, 86, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Turning to group 31 on planning obligations, can I call amendment 140 in the name of the minister and the minister to move this amendment? I see merit in increasing transparency of developer contributions so that those with an interest can be better informed of the context around planning decisions, yet it is crucial that the system remains proportionate and avoids placing unreasonable burdens on local authorities. New requirements were added at stage 2 for planning obligations to be both published and promoted by the planning authority and also by any other person bound by the obligation. Amendments 140 to 142 are intended to remove the requirement to promote planning obligations and require that it only be the planning authority that publishes the obligation. The planning obligation only needs to be published in one place and ideally should be found in the same place as details of the planning application that are all held by the planning authority. Further, the duty to promote is unclear and could be burdensome. I think that we can find better ways of making sure that planning information is readily available to the public through development management regulations and improved online systems. At stage 2, amendments were agreed that would allow a planning obligation to be modified or discharged either by formal application or by simple agreement. Amendments 143 to 145 require that any agreement to modify or discharge a planning obligation needs to involve all those against whom the obligation is enforceable. It must be made in writing and must be recorded as it is binding on future owners of the property. Those are positive amendments aimed at increasing the fairness and transparency of the planning obligation system, and I hope that members will support them. I move amendment 140. I rise to speak against amendment 142 in the name of the minister. That deletes part of an amendment that I secured at stage 2 around planning gain obligations and how they were recorded by the local authority, reported on by the local authority and reported to the local community affected by the developer. The reason I do that is because we all have examples in our constituencies of developers who have made largesse commitments to planning gain and planning obligations, only to renaig for any number of reasons and to very limited consequence. I have talked many times in this chamber about the example of AMA developer at Brighhouse Park in Crammond, who promised that, after building many luxury, sometimes multi-million-pound homes in the constituency, they were going to build a sports pavilion and walked away after the development of the last property, claiming that they had no funds left to deliver on that planning gain. Nothing happened to them, nothing happened to them again. Very few people in the community actually know that that was a commitment. Indeed, local authorities, because the organisational memory is only as good as the councillors if they are re-elected, did not happen. I want to retain the obligation on developers to inform local communities of the expectation around planning gain so that they can hold them to account. The question therefore is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can the minister move amendment 141? Moved. The question is that amendment 141 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We will move to a vote on amendment 142. Members may vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 142 in the name of Kevin Stewart is, yes, 107, no, 11. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 143 to 145 on block? Thank you. Does any member object if we put those questions on block? No. The question is that the Parliament agrees to amendments 143 to 145. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We are turning now to group 32, the promotion and use of mediation. Can I call amendment 146 in the name of Graham Simpson and ask Mr Simpson to move and speak to the amendment? I move amendment 146. We have already dealt with the issue of appeals at some length and why people feel the need for a third party right of appeal. We voted on that. I've looked at this and I have enormous sympathy with communities who feel left out of the planning system. We've got a system where applicants of larger developments hold meaningless, poorly advertised and poorly attended so-called community meetings ahead of putting in applications. The ticker box, and when most people find out what's happening, it's just far too late. Rouse flare, people feel let down, steam-rollered, nobody really wins. That's what's fuelled the demand for equal appeal rights. I thought, well, there must be a better way because if you get to the stage of appeal, you're at the end of the line. Surely, there has to be a way to avoid all that conflict that appeals introduce. I said at stage 2 that I did want change at this stage. I've been looking at mediation. I've had useful chats with Scottish mediation and others, including, I have to say, homes for Scotland. They would not automatically be thought of as enthusiasts for this sort of thing, but I've said to Homes for Scotland, you need to think why people want appeal rights, why they are frustrated, and we really need to address this. So I've come up with the idea of mediation. This is not something that we should see that we would use at the end of the process. It should be part of the process, right at the beginning. It's not something that should be used when people have fallen out. It should be used to bring people together throughout the process. My amendment means it could be used in preparation of local development plans. It could be used in the pre-app consultation. It could also be used at the actual application stage. So pretty much every stage of the planning process. I think we need to have a better system, one where everyone is involved in shaping communities to everyone's benefit, and I would commend mediation as part of that solution. Alison Johnstone Thank you, Presiding Officer. I believe that Graham Simpson is firmly in favour of equal rights of appeal. I understand why he feels as he put himself that he has to come up with something, but I think that that is a feeble response. We only have to have mediation because it is a confrontational system. Part of the reason that it is a confrontational system is that it is not an equitable system. If you know what the end of the day your view is just going to be disregarded, it is hugely frustrating. I got involved in politics about 30 years ago trying and failing to save a local playing field. That particular developer used to write with my own name—I was a private citizen at that point—in the local press. I am not convinced that mediation would have helped me, the local community councils who campaigned against it, the folk around me. We raised £12,000 to fund a QC to fight our case, and we still lost. It was not mediation that we needed with the greatest of respect, Mr Simpson. It was an equal right of appeal. I think that that is well-meaning, but it is not good enough. I listened carefully to the points that Graham Simpson was making. I was struck by the fact that, when we were talking about third party rights of appeal, which I backed those amendments although they fell, there was much objection to them on the basis that they would increase cost and potentially lead to greater length of time and potential complexity. I have just listened to Graham Simpson say that we could have mediation at the point at which local development plans are being discussed and at the point at which applications are being made. I am questioning how much time, complexity and cost would be factored in as a consequence of that, beyond which I am not entirely clear as to how a system of mediation would work in a situation in which there are multiple individuals who may be affected and may choose to object but would not necessarily be doing so on a collective basis. Many planning applications are not necessarily objected to by organised groups but are objected to by individuals on an individual basis who may not wish to enter into mediation on a collective basis. Therefore, individual mediation would presumably be required, again time-consuming, complex and potentially costly. If Graham Simpson can outline how the system of mediation that he proposes would overcome some of those hurdles, I might consider looking for his amendment. However, at the moment, I do not see how one can argue against third party right of appeal on the basis of complexity, cost and time and then propose a system of mediation, which does exactly that except at the front rather than at the back end of the process. I have received correspondence and support of the amendment from Scottish mediation. I also note that, in providing gypsy traveller perspective on planning processes, the charity article 12 in Scotland recommended that mediation should be made available for members of the gypsy traveller community so that they may gain equal access to decision making. We will look to build upon the policy and guidance that is already in place. We will work with planning authorities, practitioners and others to develop that guidance and I support Mr Simpson's amendment. Thank you. I call Mr Simpson to wind up if he wishes to add anything. Yeah, just to respond to the comments from Alison Johnstone and Mark McDonald. Useful comments, I think, but I think that it is inaccurate for Alison Johnstone to call this a feeble response. I think that—I am not giving away—to understand what mediation is, you need to understand that, as I said earlier, it is not something that comes at the end of the process. It should be embedded throughout the process. It is not about necessarily solving disputes. It is bringing people together and talking to them. If it is done properly, then we can have a much better planning system. In relation to Mark McDonald's comments, he is wanting details. The amendment does not set out the details. It does leave things to regulations. The reason for that is that we need to consult on all that and bring people on board so that we have a system that people agree with. I urge the chamber to back that because I think that we will end up with a better planning system if we do. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. The question is whether amendment 146 be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 146. This is a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 146 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 110, no, 7. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We turn now to group 33, which is monitoring compliance with conditions. I call amendment 147 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendment 169, minister to move the amendment. Amendment 147 removes a duplication of an existing power that allows ministers to set the scope and level of fees that authorities can charge for carrying out their functions under the planning act. In fact, the current legislation has already been used to introduce a similar charge for monitoring surface coal mining sites, which demonstrates why this specific provision is not required. The Delegated Powers Committee recommended that the duplication be removed, and I am happy to implement that recommendation. Amendment 169, in the name of John Finnie, requires planning authorities to include in their enforcement charter a statement as to how they will monitor compliance with planning permission in regard to major developments in their areas and how they will make such records available to the public. I believe that that is a helpful move that will increase transparency about the monitoring of conditions on major developments, and I encourage members to support Mr Finnie's amendment. I move amendment 147. I will be brief, because the minister has covered most of it. This is about major developments and the principle that polluter pays. Examples such as the open cast in the past in North Ayrshire, or East Ayrshire Council applied that method. It is about 675 agreements. It is about the public understanding that there is monitoring of undertakings made by those major developers, and I thank the minister and his officials for engagement on that issue. Thank you, Mr Finnie. Does the minister wish to add anything? No, thank you. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I turn to group 34 training requirements. Can I call amendment 162, in the name of the minister, to move? Thank you, Presiding Officer. All planning authorities currently provide their elected members with training, but it is not mandatory for members to attend, and there is limited consistency in what is provided. Training of elected members was overwhelmingly supported in our consultation, and many stakeholders were surprised that it was not already mandatory. I was disappointed that the committee voted to remove those provisions at stage 2. Ensuring elected members are equipped to make decisions in a consistent manner is essential to maintaining trust in the planning system. In seeking to bring back that provision, I have refined my proposal so that it no longer specifies that an examination will form part of the training requirements. I believe that there is agreement among planning stakeholders that the bill should make training a requirement for elected members making planning decisions, and I hope that members here today will support the reintroduction of that provision. I move amendment 162. Thank you very much. I call Alex Rowley. Presiding Officer, we are happy to support amendment 162 on training for councillors. Councilors have a huge range of responsibilities, and any support that we can offer them is welcome. However, training must be flexible and work around councillors with a range of different backgrounds. It cannot become a barrier to having a range of voices in the planning system. On a wider note, I believe that all of us in here need to recognise the massive workload that we are expecting councillors to run with, whether on the planning committee, if they are on an education committee or on umpteen committees. The levelly workload is increasingly making many of those jobs full-time jobs, and that is something that this Parliament needs to look at. Thank you. I call Graeme Simpson. That was rejected at stage 2, largely because of the requirement for councillors to sit and examine and pass it in order to carry out their democratic duty. I thought that that was pretty outrageous. However, the minister has brought it back without the requirement to sit and examine, so on that basis we can support it. The fact is that every council offers training to their councillors on planning matters in any case. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Turning to group 35, performance of planning authority functions, can I call amendment 163 in the name of the minister and ask the minister to move the amendment and speak to all the members? Presiding Officer, the performance of the planning system is vitally important. We are reforming planning, so it better serves us all. Everyone deserves to receive a good service from householders who want to extend their homes to large-scale developers and communities who want to be assured that their views are being listened to. How planning performs even matters to people who do not engage in the service but benefit from what planning does for our communities anyway. I was disappointed that the committee chose to remove the performance provisions at stage 2, which is why I have sought to return them. To write the parliamentary process, I have worked with members and stakeholders to build understanding and seek consensus where we can. I have listened to what people have said and have made a number of changes to those provisions, which now give a much clearer emphasis to supporting improvement, not just improvement of planning authorities but of the system as a whole. Among our changes in amendment 163, we have reflected that performance reporting needs to recognise planning's contribution to positive outcomes. In amendment 183, we have rebadged the performance coordinator as an improvement coordinator and widened that role to operate in an advisory capacity to all involved in planning as to how everyone can play their part in a fair and effective planning system. We have lightened the provisions in amendment 165 to clarify the supportive nature of any assessment while ensuring that necessary improvements will happen. We will continue to work closely and constructively with planning authorities and wider stakeholders to develop the framework for how performance should be viewed and how the co-ordinator can support improved performance across the system. I ask that members now support those provisions in their new improved format and please agree all of the amendments in this group. I move amendment 163. Thank you very much, and I call Andy Wightman. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. All the amendments in this group were in the original bill and were removed by the committee at stage 2. Today they make their unwelcome return and we like them no more than we did at stage 2 and we are voting against them all. I know that amendment 183 in particular was lodged after the Government withdrew amendment 164 that drew the ire of COSLA. It is worth quoting from COSLA's letter to me of 10 June in which it set out our stage 1 report's conclusions. I quote, The committee sees no need or justification for the bill's proposals on performance and recommends that section 28 of the bill be removed. We consider that the Scottish Government should continue to work collaboratively with COSLA. That was in our stage 1 report. Since stage 2, we have attempted to work collaboratively with the Scottish Government but without success. I am glad that amendment 164 was withdrawn. It included language around corruption and propriety, but, nevertheless, we still do not see any case for the amendments being brought back here at stage 3. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We will not be supporting amendments 163, 165, 166 or 185. We will be supporting amendment 183. It was a surprise and a disappointment to realise that COSLA were not consulted in the development of those amendments from the minister whose door is open to everybody. The assessment of planning authorities' performance and annual reporting should be in the public interest, and that means that it should be seen as an opportunity to champion the interests of planners as much as the Government exerts its influence. However, those amendments do not have that effect. They are framed by what feels like punitive ability of the Government to intervene and direct a planning authority while planning authorities have little or no recourse or opportunity to promote their interests. COSLA's views should have been sought regarding how to do that effectively and they were not. As it stands, we support the creation of the improvement co-ordinator. We believe that, with the right consultation, that could become a role that could work with the planning authorities, not against them, to bring about positive changes in the planning processes that are in the public interest. For example, promoting the role of that planners can play in public health and equalities, sharing best practice, highlighting issues in the planning system that planners should not be held responsible for, for example, delays with the section 75 payments and a lack of resources more generally. I appeal to the minister to hear what he said about going to work with COSLA and local authorities. He should have done so. If he wants to get them on board with us, he needs to commit to listening and not just telling the planning authorities in COSLA what they should and should not be doing. I have already heard that much of that was thrown out at stage 2. There are three elements to it. One was the annual performance report, which councils were asked to produce. If I can take that one first, which is an amendment 163, in itself I see no objection to that. Councils regularly report on things and I don't see that as particularly onerous. Then we come on to the planning co-ordinator. This was an extremely controversial role that was also thrown out. At this stage, the Government introduced an amendment on the planning co-ordinator that really got people's backs up and COSLA's backs up. I held a meeting at COSLA's office with COSLA reps and other stakeholders. It was after the Government had tabled their amendments, so between then and now, and I asked them to tell me what their concerns were in the bill, with the amendments. We discussed that at length, and where we got to was where we are now, the Government's new amendment. I was happy to feed back the comments of COSLA to the Minister, and as we all know, he has an open door. I am glad that he has listened to what COSLA had to say, because now he will have to work with them and others to develop this role. The third part is the power to appoint someone to conduct assessments of a planning authority's performance. Here, we have amendments 1.6.5 and 1.6.6, and they are little changed from what was in the bill originally. To my mind, they are far too onerous. They allow someone, an unnamed person, to go into a council or demand to see anything they like, any papers, and are just sweeping powers. I was disappointed that this remains, as an amendment, to be honest. Rather, the minister did not press it, but we will certainly be voting against 1.6.5 and 1.6.6. I have listened to a huge amount of the comments that have been made, and they have made changes along the way. One of the things that I would say to members is that performance and how we deal with performance was very high in the agenda of stakeholders and members of the public when we were consulting. I think that we have an obligation to ensure that we deal with performance issues. I hope that members will support all of the amendments in my name today. The question is whether amendment 1.6.3 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are going to move to a vote on amendment 1.6.3. Members may cast their votes now. This will be a one-minute division. Amendment 1.6.3. The result of the vote on amendment 1.6.3, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 87, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 183? Moved, Presiding Officer. That is moved. I will call amendment 183A in the name of Monica Lennon. This was debated yesterday in the qualities issues. Monica Lennon to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 183A be agreed to. That is not agreed to. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. This is a 32nd vote on amendment 183A, debated yesterday on equalities. The result of the vote on amendment 183A, in the name of Monica Lennon, is yes, 30, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. The question now is that amendment 183A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 183A. The result of the vote on amendment 183A, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 106, no, 11. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 165A? That is moved, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 165A be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 165A. The result of the vote on amendment 165A, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 57, no, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. Can I call amendment 166A, in the name of the minister? Ask him to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 166A be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 166A, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 58, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. We turn now to group 36, chief planning officers. I call amendment 170 and ask Alexander Stewart to move and speak to the amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 170, in my name. The role of the chief planning officer is a new role that is created by the bill, added by the way of amendments at stage 2. Section 26C2 specified that the role of the chief planning officer is currently set out in broad terms. It is appropriate for the detailed nature of the role to vary because planning authorities, because one size may not fit all. The role of the planning authority in the running of their affairs is to be respected. However, it is also important to recognise that the current planning system is on a Scottish wide basis and, therefore, there is merit in there being a degree of consistency across authorities in relation to the approach of the planning matters. As such, it is appropriate that Scottish ministers be required to issue guidance in relation to the role of the chief planning officer. That will help to ensure some consistency in the role across planning authorities, likely including between the responsibilities of and functions carried out by the chief planning officer. In addition, such guidance may be of help to authorities as they frame the new role for their organisations. Issuing guidance is more flexible than setting out aspects across detail than in the bill. Guidance can create the range of circumstances that might be easily revised at primary legislation if changes are required to be made or if guidance is required to be updated to reflect the changing environment. I seek support, and I move the amendment in my name. I am happy to support Mr Stewart's amendment on the role of the chief planning officer. I believe that Scotland is leading the way by creating the statutory post and has no objection to ministers being required to produce guidance in the role. We would, of course, do that in close collaboration with the profession heads of planning Scotland and COSLA. Thank you, minister. Does Mr Stewart wish to add anything? No, prayer in officer. Thank you, therefore, the question is that amendment 170 be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. No, we are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their vote now on amendment 170. That is good. The result of the vote on amendment 170 in the name of Alexander Stewart is, yes, 91, no, 26. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. Can I call amendment 11 in the name of Rhoda Grant? This was debated with the amendment 188 on national scenic areas. That is moved. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote on amendment 11. Members may cast their votes now. This is on national scenic areas. Sorry, the result of the vote on amendment 11 in the name of Rhoda Grant is, yes, 88, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. Can I call amendment 206 in the name of Rhoda Grant? That is moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. Are we agreed? Yes. No, we are not agreed. We will have to move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 206 in the name of Rhoda Grant is, yes, 110, no, 6. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. We are going to turn now to group 37, which will almost certainly be the last group. Notice by planning authority of applications for listed building consent. I call amendment 148 and ask the minister to move. Section 9 of the Planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation area of Scotland Act 1997 is amended at stage 2 by an amendment from Gordon Lindhurst that would require planning authorities to notify neighbours of applications for listed consent in certain circumstances. It also requires that notification for listed building consent applications should be given to the same people in the same way as for planning applications. It is not clear that those two requirements will always be compatible, nor that it is necessarily appropriate. Listed building consent is a different purpose and deals with different types of work from planning consent. In particular, listed building consent is often required for internal works that have no impact on the neighbours. Planning authorities have also raised concerns about the possible impact of this requirement. No fee is charged for listed building consent, so there is that present no income to cover additional notifications. However, I am happy to consider whether there are gaps in notification for listed building consent that we should fill. Perhaps, for example, for internal works to shared buildings. What amendment 148 does is to remove the specific requirements and instead put in place provisions so that the powers to make regulations about applications for listed building consent match those for planning applications. When we review the development management regulations after the bill, we will consider and consult on whether any changes also need to be made to the regulations under the listed buildings act. That will allow us to make sure that the requirements are appropriate for each regime. I move amendment 148. No one else has asked to speak in this section. The question is that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 112 in the name of Alec Rowley? Already debated with amendment 112. Alec Rowley to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. Thank you very much. The result of the vote on amendment number 112 in the name of Alec Rowley is, yes, 30, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Do not take this as a reason to jump up from your seats and infigate the chamber, but that is the end of consideration of amendments this afternoon. Just to give you an idea, there is roughly between three groups, maybe between 30 and 45 minutes, so we will schedule time tomorrow and we will amend business tomorrow morning to consider those last amendments. However, we have got a few items to consider today this evening. The next item is consideration of business motion 17816 in the name of Graham Day and draft the bureau setting out a business programme. Can I call on Graham Day to move this motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that motion 17816 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motions 17818 and 17819 on the stage 1 timetable for two bills. Can I call on Graham Day to move those two motions? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Again, no one is asked to speak. The question is that motions 17818 and 17819 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next item is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 17817 on a committee meeting at the same time as the Parliament. Can I ask Graham Day to move this motion? Move, Presiding Officer. That is moved and we come to decision time to consider that question. The question is that motion 17817 in the name of Graham Day on a committee meeting at the same time as Parliament be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move to members' business in a few moments, but I thank the point of order, Mr Dornan. Yes, James Dornan. I wonder if you could give me some guidance on how a member would correct inaccuracies that he made in his contributions today. Earlier on today, Monica Lennon made it clear that she believed that the minister only spoke to those that he wanted to speak to or those that agreed with his position. Now, I became convener of the local government committee at the start of the stage 2 process and there is not a member of that committee during that. If they are speaking honestly, I would not say that every meeting that the cabinet secretary was at was almost every week. He made it clear that he would speak to anybody about any issue regarding the planning bill. I think that, to cast aspersions in his reputation, like was done earlier today, Monica Lennon should be corrected. I thank Mr Dornan for the advance notice of the point of order. It was very similar to the one that was raised by Rachel Hamilton earlier. There is a correction procedure either through the official report or through members' making statement that is up to the member concerned to make a decision as to whether it needs to be corrected. I thank the minister for giving me advance notice. I will now move to members' business. We will take a few moments to change seats.