 The next item of business is a debate on motion 7442 in the name of Tom Arthur on the fourth national planning framework. I'd be grateful if members who wish to speak were to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion up to 13 minutes, minister. Presiding Officer, I am delighted to open this afternoon's debate on Scotland's fourth national planning framework. We are in a somewhat novel situation with Parliament having created a statutory role for itself in improving the final version of the framework without then specifying what that role should involve, but thankfully we have managed to work it out for ourselves. I was pleased to lay before Parliament the revised draft of the fourth national planning framework, NPF 4, as we all know it, last year on 8 November. There was then more parliamentary scrutiny led by the local government housing and planning committee, at which I and our stakeholders gave evidence. The committee has now published its report and this debate represents the final part of the process. When I hope that Parliament comes together later this afternoon to unanimously approve NPF 4. During this process people told us that while the broadly supported draft NPF 4, there was scope to significantly improve the policies, the practicality and, importantly, the clarity of intent of the document. I gave my commitment that the Government would take its time, consider carefully the views expressed by the Parliament and by everyone who responded to the consultation, that I would make sure that we get it right and return with a revised NPF 4. That is what we have done. I am pleased that the committee recognises that and welcomes the revised draft and the improvements that we have made. We listened, we reconsidered and reacted to what people told us. In that, I warmly welcome the committee's conclusion. It is clear that the Scottish Government has listened to the comments of the committee and stakeholders. Yes, we did, and the revised NPF 4 is so much the better for it. I also welcome the committee's intention to monitor delivery, and I very much look forward to continuing to engage with the committee on that in the months and years ahead. In light of his opening remarks, does the minister accept that there has been a substantial change in the way wildland areas are treated from the first draft of the revised draft of the plan, which moves away from a presumption against development in those wildland areas? Can he tell us who has been lobbying him to make that U-turn, and can he give us clarity now on what that means? On the first instance, I refer the member to our explanatory report that we published on November, along with the revised draft of NPF 4, which sets out in considerable detail how the consultation process led to the changes that we have made. What we have seen is a strengthening of the policy, which is absolutely consistent with our ambitions to put climate and nature at the centre of Scotland's planning system. The delivery programme that we published alongside our revised NPF 4 in November is a first edition. It is very much intended as a live document, constantly being actioned, reviewed and updated. It will play a crucial role in bringing together all the actions to support NPF 4's delivery. It sets out an approach to governance, to new legislation and guidance, to facilitation of investment in development and to the vital monitoring of progress, which will inform future actions and subsequent iterations of the programme. I have already committed to undertaking the first review of the NPF 4 delivery programme after six months, then annually, rare after, to ensure that we get off to a strong start and maintain the momentum throughout the lifetime of NPF 4. I also note the concerns heard by the committee about getting the balance right between what appear to be potential conflicts in certain policy areas. That balance will be key, but in essence, isn't that what planning has always been about? Seeking to get the right decisions about how we manage and develop places to meet a range of policy needs. Those tensions are inherent in the very concept of planning. If we are to deliver on this Government's ambitions to make Scotland fairer, greener and more prosperous, it is right that we prioritise key national policy objectives through the framework's policies. It was always our intention, as I have stated, to put climate and nature front and centre of our planning system. Listening to calls for greater clarity and strengthening on that, NPF 4 introduces a new national planning policy. Number one, to ensure that, in all planning decisions, significant weight will be given to the climate and nature crisis. That new policy sets out our intention to ensure that positive action is embedded right across the planning system. I am most grateful. The NPF 4 refers to the fact that the A9 and the A96 will be improved for reasons of safety. Minister, there is one word that is conspicuous by its absence from this text, namely the sole word dualling. The Scottish Government's commitments remain to dule the A9 from Perth to Inverness and the A96 in my constituency from Inverness to Nairn. Can the minister confirm therefore that the absence of the reference to dualling in this planning document implies no dilution and that commitment to which I refer remains absolutely rock solid? I am very grateful to Mr Ewing for the intervention. I am absolutely delighted to give that commitment to Mr Ewing on the record here today in Parliament. Very briefly, I have a lot to get through. Douglas Lumsden. I thank the minister for giving way. Fergus Ewing mentioned the A96 between Inverness and Nairn, but can he also commit that the A96 will be fully dualled between Inverness and Aberdeen? Minister. The commitments that this Government has made on dualling of the A9 and the A96 remain and it is considerable work undertaken to ensure that we can deliver on these commitments. As I said, it was always our intention to ensure that climate and nature were front and centre of our planning system. We understand what that means for future developments across Scotland. NPF4 does not shy away from the hard decisions that we will have to make about our future. It also enables different opportunities to be realised that will transform our economy and society, such as through development of renewable energy technologies. NPF4 will support the sustainable growth of the renewable sector while continuing to protect our most valued natural assets and cultural heritage. I welcome comments from Scottish renewables recognising revised draft NPF4 as probably one of the most supportive planning regimes for renewables in the whole of Europe. However, it does not mean any development in any place. Wind energy is not being supported in national parks and national scenic areas. Drawing on consultation responses, we have, as touched on earlier, included a more explicit policy position on wild land, subject to an impact assessment and appropriate mitigation, management measures and monitoring. That also recognises that wild land areas are partly included in national scenic areas and national parks, while wider NPF4 policies also include protections for peat land, nature conservation sites and protected historical assets. Another key objective of NPF4 is to help people to live well locally in the future by embedding principles of local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods into how we design and create places and communities. I know that some stakeholders' concerns that this approach might result in entrenchment of inequalities in neighbourhoods. Is it not what the current system as well as much wider social and economic over change over time has inadvertently resulted in, in many urban areas in particular? Our fresh approach to spatial planning will allow us to create places with improved access to the facilities and amenities that are required by people in their daily lives, to support thriving, sustainable, healthy communities and protect and enhance our environment. The aim is to create more balanced, diverse communities and neighbourhoods. I acknowledge the need for clarity on how the local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods approach can be applied in rural settings. Scotland's geography and population sparsity demands that the application of the template will differ according to the unique circumstances, opportunities and aspirations of individual places. I am afraid that I do not have time, Mr Simpson, but I am happy to conclude. To support this important principle for new development, we will publish and invite views on new guidance on local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods. It will take extensive collaboration and commitment across sectors to deliver NPF4. Local authorities are key partners. The strength of NPF4 is in connecting planning with wider work through the place principle, which involves everyone. To aid this work, a new planning infrastructure in place advisory group is being established to oversee delivery and support implementation of NPF4. The committee rightly highlights concerns about capacity and skills, and we are already acting to address those issues. Last April, I increased planning fees to provide additional resources for planning services across Scotland. A further increase was implemented last month to support assessment of applications under the Electricity Act. I have been working closely with the high-level group on planning performance to explore how planning fees can move towards full-cost recovery to more accurately cover the cost of handling applications. But funding is only one part of the solution. I agree with the committee that all endeavours must be made to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of planners in place to deliver on the ambitions of NPF4. Work is already under way with the high-level group to enhance people resources and skills. The Future Planners project, which sets out a number of practical actions, is a good example of that. I am liaising with the relevant Government ministers to ensure that planning features in the recently announced skills review and as part of our green skills activity. I would also note that, in its conclusion, the committee states that it is not satisfactory to simply assume that planning policy is now set for 10 years and can be left as it is. I can assure Parliament that no such assumption has been made by me or by this Government. This year we will bring forward regulations that set out how we can make changes to NPF4 in the future. NPF4 is not an aspirational document, it is a plan, a plan for action to be proactively pursued and delivered. If approved today and once adopted, NPF4 will form part of the statutory development plan and have a substantial influence on all planning decisions. Should Parliament give its approval to NPF4, the Government will move quickly to adopt it next month. I will first lay regulations in the Parliament to commence the provisions of the 2019 planning act so that NPF4 will become part of the statutory development plan immediately on its adoption. Prior to adoption, I can confirm that we will also issue transitional guidance, which will help to smooth the shift from the old system to the new over the early weeks and months. I will also lay regulations in the coming weeks and publish related guidance, which will pave the way for the new style local development plans, which will sit alongside NPF4. It is important to remember that NPF4 is one part of a wider statutory development plan. In all cases, NPF4 will be taken together with local development plans to form the basis of decisions and decision makers also take into account material considerations. With the intrinsic links between planning policy at both national and local levels, the detailed reforms to local development planning alongside NPF4 will set the arrangements for producing stronger, place-focused plans and reinforce the plan-led system. There is no doubt that there is a lot still to do to turn NPF4 from good intentions into reality. Much of planning is procedural and practical by its very nature by focusing solely on its component parts. We risk losing sight of its purpose. Planning is far from prosaic. It helps to form the very foundation of policymaking. From it, all else flows. It is undoubtedly about place but it is also about people. Planning defines and enables development in every aspect of our lives. It informs the where, what and how of living, working and travelling. It plays a crucial role in attracting investment and in facilitating the type of development we will need to build a wellbeing economy. By necessity, it deems what we should not do, where we should not do it and how to prevent undesirable development. This last aspect is crucially important to a country like Scotland where we are blessed with a natural environment and a landscape that is rich and abundant. We have assets worth protecting and nurturing, which will help us to effectively tackle the twin crises of nature and climate, while also creating new economic and social opportunities for future generations. In conclusion, the fourth national planning framework seeks to further our ambitions for Scotland, the better, cleaner and more prosperous country, changing how people in Scotland will live in the future by planning. I am proud to move that motion in my name. I call on Ariane Burgess to speak on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate in my capacity as convener of the local government housing and planning committee and to underscore a few points from the committee. The Parliament is being invited to approve MPF4, but that should not be seen as the end of the process of our parliamentary scrutiny. The critical part of MPF4 will be seeing how it works in practice. As a committee, we will continue to hold the Scottish Government to account throughout the session for the effectiveness of MPF4. While we are yet to see the impact of MPF4, the committee welcomes the improved clarity and consistency in the document, and in particular is focused on the climate and biodiversity emergencies. It is clear to the committee that the Scottish Government has listened to the comments of the Parliament's committees and stakeholders, and the minister and his officials should be hugely commended for their efforts. Although the draft reflects a significant improvement on the previous draft, stakeholders have highlighted to us ways in which it could be further improved. While the minister has been clear that this will be the final draft, we welcome his commitment to consider changes and updates following implementation. The test will now be in how MPF4 is implemented and whether it delivers its ambitions. The committee welcomed a delivery programme that accompanied the draft. We have very limited time to consider it. However, as such, we welcome the opportunity to revisit the programme in six months, and we will also be closely scrutinising its effect throughout the session. Most critically, if the ambitions of MPF4 are to be fully realised, then we need properly resourced and staffed planning departments. The absence of sufficient numbers of planners is clearly the greatest obstacle to the delivery of MPF4. It is not just a case, though, of having more planners. It is about having planners with the necessary skills to deliver on MPF4 such as expertise in climate and biodiversity planning. I am heartened to hear today of the actions that the minister is taking to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of planners with the right skills in place to deliver on the ambitions. We will also be closely monitoring this. MPF4, as conceived, should be a transformational impact on Scotland. To do so, it should impact all aspects of life. If that is to be achieved, then the Scottish Government needs to adopt a cross-cutting approach. The committee notes that in Ireland cabinet ministers must set out how their departments intend to deliver policies to set out in their equivalent Irish framework. We would welcome a similar commitment from the Scottish Government. The success of MPF4 is also reliant on how it is translated into local development plans by planning authorities. The guidance from regulations on local development plans must be brought forward as a matter of urgency. I would welcome an update from the minister on when we should expect to see the guidance and regulations. As I said before, this is not the end of the process of parliamentary scrutiny on MPF4. We welcome the minister's commitment to lay an annual report before the Parliament and we will scrutinise that report. We are also keen to hear from all stakeholders on their experience of MPF4 and the extent to which it is achieving the intended outcomes. In particular, we will be keen to hear from local communities about how they are able to shape their places in which they live through the local place plans. That is a much improved document and is one that provides a sound foundation for shaping Scotland for the next 10 years. We have a long journey ahead through to ensure that it makes that transformational change that it seeks to achieve and we as a committee will be closely monitoring the effectiveness of MPF4 in making that change. I thank the clerks of the Local Government and Planning Committee for all their help and support during the passage of MPF4 through Parliament. I also thank the hundreds of individuals, charities, interested parties and organisations that have provided useful, incredibly helpful briefings and input to try to improve MPF4. It has been a pleasure, and I am sure that the minister agrees with me on that, to engage with all those who have a passion around our planning system and really want to make a contribution to the conversation on how we do improve our planning system in Scotland today. From the outset, we on these benches have engaged constructively, and I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has made many changes in taking those forward. I would put on the record, specifically thanks to the minister for the positive approach and discussions that he has had, that has sadly become a refreshing change to how Parliament operates. Sadly, we have seen in recent years the limitation of outreach from the Scottish Government ministers following the Brute House agreement and the formation of an SNP Green majority government. I hope that, in this new session, after this new year, we do see a change in that, but I certainly put on record my thanks to the minister for how he has conducted himself during the passage of MPF4. We recognise the importance of tackling the climate emergency and nature crisis through our planning system. However, from the outset, I have called on the housing emergency to be central to the development of a new MPF4 if we are truly going to ensure that Scotland's housing needs are met in the future. As homes for Scotland say in their briefing, it remains disappointing that the housing crisis is not specifically mentioned and they are concerned over the seeming lack of ambition in the MPF4 to address it. It is most likely that housing, whether private or social, will be delivered in spite of MPF4 rather than because of it, with underwhelming minimum all-tenure housing land requirements, doing little to drive forward a number of new homes that Scotland requires. To date, we have seen a lack of transitional guidance, which also risks causing considerable unnecessary delay in those applications that are already in the planning system and decisions around those as well. The fact is that the SNP Green Government has failed to address Scotland's housing crisis, which is making it harder for people to get on the property ladder and get the homes that they need as well. The Scottish Government's latest housing statistics, for example, reveal that housing completions across all tenures in Scotland are still now below pre-Covid levels. Why does putting housing in the housing crisis at the front of MPF4 matter? There are today 28,000 households across Scotland who are homeless. That is 32,592 adults. That is 14,370 children registered as homeless in our country today. I wanted and hope that MPF4 could help address this and make sure that our focus is not just on the climate and nature emergency but on our housing crisis. I do not think that we have achieved that, and I think that that is disappointing. I am very grateful. On the issue of housing, does the member agree with me that, although the content of the MPF4 in respect of housing in rural Scotland is, to some extent, to be welcomed? It is still very restrictive, it is very caveated, it is very difficult to build houses in rural Scotland and that there are strong arguments that rural Scotland, farmers in particular, can do much more to address the housing crisis, which I think that we all agree is a serious one for Scotland. I absolutely agree with that point. One of the key aspects of what needs to be taken forward is how, given the additional costs that small-scale builders are facing, many of which might not last any coming recession, we need to look at the potential for more small-scale investments to be supported. That is something that, especially in rural Scotland, I would like to see a specific rural homes delivery agency, for example, to take forward, just driving forward the targets that Fergus Ewing mentions as well. MPF4 does, though, have the potential to drive sustainable growth and deliver new jobs in key sectors. I welcome that specifically around the renewable sector, because we have seen a shift in that. However, I am concerned, as Fergus Ewing has outlined, that the housing sector could see negative impacts going forward from this MPF4. I have outlined on a number of occasions to the minister my concerns, specifically with regard to future land supply, because there is no mechanism in fixing the under-delivery of land pipeline, for example, within MPF4. For longer-term sites that do not come forward to fill that gap, I still think that it is unclear how the over-delivery pipeline, for example, will allow further land to be brought forward in the event that there are no deliverable brainfield sites coming forward. I do not want to rehearse the arguments that I have made with regard to Edinburgh, but there is a real concern that most development sites that we have in MPF4 and local plans here in Edinburgh are currently being used by viable businesses, for example, car dealerships, which throughout the seedfield part of the city that I represent are allocated for housing, but there is no future development plan where these businesses are meant to go for those houses and homes to be realised. I think that we really need to see ministers look at how that will be delivered going forward as well. Planning policy should be clear, concise and written as to not provide our result in misinterpretation. I think that that is also an area that I hope the minister has taken on board a number of key concerns that businesses have outlined to him as well. There continues to be concerns over a number of specific policy areas, including the inclusion of policy 27D, which is, I believe, unnecessarily restrictive and puts a risk to future potential job creation as well. I welcome the comments that the minister has made in committee in relation to working to make sure that we do not see that misinterpretation of this policy, but the guidance will have to provide clear specific clarity as to not result in the unintended consequences. I will very briefly here. I am very grateful. As I stated at committee, I committed to meet with stakeholders. I have met with stakeholders a large organisation that has several drive-through premises. I have committed to my officials working together with their team to ensure that we get the guidance absolutely correct on that. My official home meeting with other representatives, as will I, of sectors that are affected by this policy. I would just want to give that reassurance that I gave that commitment and would actively take it forward. I very much welcome that. I think that this is where unintended consequences of any policy this Parliament brings forward. It is important that we make sure that the guidance specifically does not result especially in the potential slowdown in the economy or job creation. That is something none of us, I believe, would want to see. I also think that delivery of community projects and infrastructure has also been something that we needed to see a better focus on within the planning system. For example, here in Edinburgh I have been campaigning to take forward development of an urban greenway in the old powderhole railway site. From the outset, there should have been an opportunity, I believe, for the MPF forward to make it easier for communities to take forward these planning applications. We have not really seen that. I would like to see more focus, as the minister said. He is willing to look at more consultation on this, how we can transform and put into our communities the opportunity to bring forward their own planning and development of infrastructure as well. I think that that has not really been captured in the MPF4 and something that I know the minister has touched upon. I hope that we can see more focus going forward as well. Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland and Planning Democracy have been clear that only with properly resourced local authorities can we deliver proper planning. I welcome what the minister has said with regards to planning departments and funding of planners. The sad fact is that many planning departments are underfunded and understaffed at present and have been allowed to see cuts to budgets over many years now and we see the consequences of that situation. That has to change and I welcome what the minister has said specifically with regards to that. To close, Presiding Officer, I do not think that anyone believes that the passing of MPF4 today will signal the delivery of the planning system that Scotland needs to meet all the challenges that our communities currently face. The delivery of the plan will only be possible through system change and I think that that has come in the convener's outline as well in her remarks. MPF4 should be a key document that influences the Scottish Government decision making across all portfolios, perhaps most importantly the health portfolio to be honest, and serves as a core to future policy development in Scotland as well. The devil will always be in the detail and I hope that the minister will now work to deliver the critical guidance industry is asking for and communities demand. We can see that flexibility going forward to ensure that any potential need for changes and fixes are brought forward as soon as possible. Although I welcome much of what has been changed in MPF4. It is not acceptable in its current form and as such, Scottish Conservatives will not be supporting it this evening. That is a vitally important document, not for Parliament, not for Government, but for the communities, local decision makers and businesses who desperately need long overdue detail about how planning will work for the next decade. I would like to echo the thanks for the considerable input from stakeholders that is taken to get here, especially the communities most affected by the planning framework, as well as work by the Minister and his officials. Organisations such as RSPB, Homes for Scotland or Heads of Planning and Scottish Renewables have welcomed the significant improvements since the first draft. The revised draft delivered necessary improvements to the structure, even the readability, clarity and consistency and flexibility around policies. As we set out at committee, the original draft was not the greatest. At committee, we concluded that there are still elements of MPF4 that could be improved, that a cross-government approach to implementation is still found wanting and that a decimated planning profession lacks a proper pipeline to deliver on the ambition in this framework. We have heard reports that one of our higher education institutes will be ending their undergraduate planning programme, leaving only a single higher education institute with a planning school in this country, and that will put even more pressure if that comes to pass on the pipeline of planning professionals. Our most fundamental concern is that the framework in itself does not do enough to tackle Scotland's housing crisis. The fact is that we need to build more homes because our housing crisis has gotten worse since the last framework was not better. We need to build more homes that are warmer, safer and more accessible for an changing population that is living alone in greater numbers. That needs to be done while balancing the views of local people and protecting our natural and existing environment. Homes in greater numbers must be built because too few have been built for years now. Under previous Governments, an average of about 24,000 homes were built in each year by both the private and social sectors. Despite the Government's ambitious affordable housing supply programme, barely 18,000 new homes a year have been built since the last framework was introduced. Miles Briggs. I agree with what he is saying with regard to the numbers of homes, but the types of homes is also critically important. A freedom of information request, for example, which Scottish Conservatives have done, has shown that there are 24,000 disabled people on the housing waiting list. That is up from 9,700 in 2017, so the types of houses also need to change. We have not really seen that in MPF4 either. Mark Griffin. That is the point that I made on the changing demographics of this country. We have an ageing population, a population that is living more and more alone. We do not seem to reflect that change or reflect the needs of our disabled population when it comes to planning the houses of the future. I do not think that when it comes to this document, it gives a great deal of comfort to the 180,000 households who are just now on a waiting list for a home, or the 30,000 households assessed that have been threatened or in homelessness last year. One element of the housing market is that, since the last framework was approved, the number of homes that have been empty on a long-term basis has grown by 12,000, an increase in 12,000 homes taken out of the property market. If you include second homes and short-term lets, that accounts for 3 per cent of homes that have not been used for their primary purpose for people to live in. We have to build more to compensate. That is an issue that my constituents in Central Scotland raise week after week, the lack of housing. They see the connections that, when policies like this are launched, the housing crisis does not seem to be given the recognition that it deserves. They see family homes lying empty that their sons, daughters and nephews, their family or friends, could be living in right now but going to waste. As well as that much is made of 28-minute neighbourhoods in this framework, and that is an admirable objective. Again, what my constituents want is a home near their support networks, near family who can help with childcare, drop in with some messages when they are just a quick catch-up. That is what makes things easier for people. That is what leads to a better quality of life. When the revised draft was published, I asked the minister why the Government was dismissing concerns about the all-10-year housing targets being based on historical secondary data gathered through the housing need and demand assessment process. That process is not robust, it is not an evidence-based approach. It is estimated that up to 86,000 households, particularly young households, still have people living at home, young adults who want to go out and get their own home. They have not been counted with those figures. They might be a concealed household in their childhood bedroom or they could be an overcrowded household, a home that is too small for the adults living within it. Crucially, they do not get counted by those figures unless they are both concealed and overcrowded. That leads to a huge undercounting in the figures. It is estimated that around a million are uncounted across England, so it is not a unique problem to Scotland. It is one that we have not addressed. The Government has asserted that the Honda tool is the optimum tool at the Government's disposal. The minimum land requirement is simply a minimum, with planned authorities expected to go beyond those numbers, but it ignores the fact that those numbers are treated as targets. That leads to a lack of robust data, which means that inappropriate developments can be driven like a horse and cart through a local development plan. Presiding Officer, we will support the NPF4 motion tonight at decision time, but we are clear that this is by no means a finished document, and we look forward to scrutinising the transitional guidance that the minister has committed to producing. I suspect that it is not being independently verified, but if there was a prize for the most passionate, enthusiastic planning minister ever in Holyrood, I think that Tom Arthur would definitely get that award. He delivered a very comprehensive and passionate contribution earlier on today, and I admire him for that, because this is a difficult policy area. A myriad of documents from all parts of Government, and he's got to try and bring it together, so it needs his passion to make it work. The NPF process has been ratcheted up over the last two decades since when it was first created. Its weight and significance now, and the power that it gives central Government is much greater than it was when it first began. I'm cautious about that. I have to say that it doesn't mean that I'm against the measures in the document, but I'm cautious about the transfer of power from local communities and local authorities to the centre. I think that it's good to have best practice that's spread and encouraged, but when it becomes statutory and centralised as a liberal, I have anxieties about that. Over time, we need to make sure that we check ourselves about what more powers we accumulate to this Parliament and to this Government. However, the significant weight to the global climate change and nature crisis is a significant change in one that has to be welcomed. To achieve that, we're going to have to have robust policy that gives confidence not only to councillors but to planners to be able to make the right decisions. They're facing quite challenging decisions already. To add that on to their area of required expertise, I think, will make things challenging. That even adds emphasis to the points that others have made this afternoon about the resourcing of planning departments and the expertise of planning departments. It's not as if the nature crisis and climate has not been a factor for planners before, but the greater emphasis now does require a greater expertise. Planning departments, as we all know, have been bedivelled for years about the lack of experience, the constant turnover of staff and the shortage of staff. Some of the lead times for planning applications can go on forever, and that gives nobody any great confidence. I hope that, when the minister set out earlier on that he's got this high-level group that sounds very high-level, he's going to make some real changes. There will be some difficult decisions to be made in terms of full-cost recovery, if that's going to be something that we're going to pursue. How are we going to make sure that we keep the best planners in planning departments so that they're not attracted to work in construction companies who are often offering better pay than planning departments could ever offer? I hope that that makes a real change. If we're going to get the six to seven hundred extra staff that is estimated that we were required, then it's going to be a big challenge for this high-level group to achieve. I asked a question to the statement in November about permitted development rights. The minister replied enthusiastically, as always, that he's making real progress on permitted development rights for renewables, in particular solar. I hope that, in the minister's summing up, he might make a reference to the progress that he's made, because he did say that it was going to be progress available early in the new year. This is the new year and it's early, so I'm hoping that we're going to have some progress on that. In particular, I've got a development called, or a business called Metaflake Incent in Anstrother, who's keen to put solar panels on the roof that's more than 50 kilowatts, but they have to apply for the planning permission, but they also have to pay extra business rates on that. Those are two disincentives. I know that the second one is changing, but it shouldn't have been this case, because England has been marching ahead on this for some time. They've got greater limits for solar across their policy areas, so I hope that the minister is going to respond positively on that. The minister is right when he said, that's what planning is all about. We are about meeting the various competing demands, but the competing demands are even greater now. Building homes on brownfield sites often can be expensive. Let's just be blunt about it. It's in difficult to access areas that perhaps got land that names reclaimed or cleaned up and the environmental costs for that are not cheap. We need to consider the fact that that, together, sometimes with Putin, yes, certainly. I take up your point about it's difficult to build on brownfield sites, and that's one of the challenges that I have found. Would you agree that we need to enable whatever laws that we have to support local authorities to do whatever they can to address brownfield sites? It's absolutely right. It's what you do is the challenge. Some of those sites require extra money to be blunt, because they actually don't wash their face financially if you just left it to the open market. Are we going to use Government funds to incentivise companies to build in difficult to build areas? That also includes flats above shops. You would have thought those shop flats would be full of people already. There's nothing to stop them developing those properties already. Why are they not getting done? It's because they're difficult, expensive, security issues, planning restrictions on the frontage of the buildings that are more expensive to do. What is the state going to do rather than requiring extra burdens and requirements on them? What is the state going to do to incentivise those things to happen? We'll produce more documents like that for decades on end, and nothing will change. You must include Mr Rennie. I've got a lot more to say, but I'll stop. I think that we need to review this document, because I think that the ideas are brilliant. I do embrace an awful lot of them. The deliverability is going to be an awful lot more challenging. I think that that's the message from today. I'm sure that the minister, with all his passion, will be able to exactly do that. We now move on to the open debate, and I call Paul McLennan to be followed by Alexander Stewart. I'm delighted to be speaking in this debate this afternoon as a member of the local government, housing and planning committee. We held numerous evidence sessions, received many briefings and held many individual meetings over the past year or so. I also thank the minister, Tom Arthur, for his open and consultative approach in bringing forward the national planning framework to this stage. I can also thank the chief planner and colleagues for their support and to fellow committee members and, of course, committee clerks. We can't underestimate the importance of the NPF4 and its impact on Scotland's economy and its climate. I'm disappointed that the Tories aren't supporting the motion today. The committee approach has been very collaborative. I think that the key thing about this, Willie Rennie touched on the point. The NPF4 itself has a document, but there are many policies around that that the committee continues to look at, such as Honda and Mattler that we've talked about. The committee is aware of its process and role, and the minister is also aware of that going forward. I think that the key thing for me is only the key things, as it says, about how this fits into the national strategy for economic transformation. In that state, Scotland has extraordinary economic potential, our natural resources. I'll touch on that later on. Our heritage, our talent, our creativity, our academic institutions and our business-based and most established and emerging sectors are the envy of many across Scotland. Every citizen holds Scotland's economic potential in their hands. Our economic growth and prosperity over many decades have been the result of entrepreneurial, talented and motivated workers in every sector. NPF4 has to give us that balance to enable us to do that. Again, the important thing is that NPF4 is a framework for local development plans, and that's the next stage, which is really important, which again drives forward local economies. The strategy then goes on to recognise opportunities and challenges that are facing Scotland. It sets out over the next 10 years how it aims to deliver economic growth that can significantly outperform in the last decade, so the Scottish economy is more prosperous, more productive and, of course, more internationally collaborative. What we need to do is in collaboration with businesses and other partners, building on energy such as energy and housing that we've heard about before, and obviously looking out for new opportunities and technology and in space and, of course, decarmonisation. To achieve the objective set in the national strategy, we need a national planning framework that sets alongside and helps Scotland to become a more prosperous, greener, independent country, and I think that NPF4 continues to do that. I want to focus on a few issues in the time that I have left. First of all, on renewables, just yesterday we heard from the cabinet secretary, Michael Mason, and he stated, and I agree with him, that we are at a pivotal point in Scotland's transition to net zero. In this strategy sets out a clear course for the transformation of the energy sector, one of Scotland's most important industries to 2030 and beyond. That transition must be achieved in a way that delivers to the people of Scotland to enable us to embrace the opportunities of our green economy. This is at a time of unprecedented uncertainty in global and national energy markets. High energy prices are impacting on people, communities and businesses in Scotland. We need that energy security. We need to grow that sector. The national planning framework needs to be able to do that. We heard earlier about the minister about the endorsement of Scottish renewables. Scotland's rich renewables resources means that we can only generate an upcheap green electricity to power Scotland's economy, but we can also generate a surplus and open up new economic opportunities for export. Again, I believe that NPF4 does that in terms of support for renewables. The member is talking about an important aspect of NPF4. Does he acknowledge the work of the net zero energy and transport committee in identifying and providing additional advice and pushing the Government a bit further to help support the renewables sector, which only this morning was supported by Clare Mack of Scottish renewables when she gave evidence to the economy committee, which is also taking a keen interest in this issue? I absolutely agree. One of the key things in NPF4 is getting the input from other committees, such as the net zero committee. That has been the collaborative approach that the minister has taken forward with that. Again, it comes back to the endorsement from Clare Mack in that regard. The other issue for me and really important is on climate change. It is obviously part of the special strategy going forward. Again, the special strategy states that the world is facing unprecedented challenges. The global climate emergency means that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the future impacts. We will need to respond to a growing nature crisis. The minister on his opening remarks talked about the importance of climate change in moving that forward and around biodiversity. Scotland's rich heritage, culture and outstanding environments are national assets, which support our economy. That is a key point. Identity, health and wellbeing. Many communities benefit from great places with excellent quality of life and quality affordable homes. Many people can access high-quality local green spaces. We have talked about about 20-minute neighbourhoods and neighbourhood facilities, safe in milcum streets and spaces and buildings that reflect diverse cultures and inspirations. The national plan on framework, I believe, gives us the opportunity to deliver the change that we need. I want to touch on resource. I met with the RTPI on Monday to discuss the issue today. I previously gave evidence at the local government committee. It sent a briefing for today's debate. It estimated that over the next 10 to 15 years, the planning sector will need to demand for 680 to 730 entrants. That will support economic development in our own areas. Housing and the renewable sector are incredibly important. I know that the minister is well aware of those issues. Many key things are talking about providing additional resources and enhancing support from Scottish Government. The minister talked about planning fees or talked about them before or about being revents to support planning purposes and increased planning fees to ensure that they meet the costs and adjust a subsidy for planning authorities to overcome the shortfall. As I said, I know that the minister recognises the need for additional resources and is engaging with the RTPI and others on this particular issue. The minister mentioned in his opening remarks the committee's desire to monitor MPF4 on an on-going basis. I think that that is really important. We are discussing with the minister how we continue to do that. It is a working document over the next 10 years, so how we monitor that and work with the minister is very, very important. In conclusion, I think that the national planning framework will help us to deliver a more prosperous, fairer, green and inclusive Scotland. Our job to support this today. I call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Fergus Ewing. I am grateful for the opportunity to scrutinise the revised national planning framework 4. These are challenging and uncertain times. Scotland is facing challenges from many different directions. With the on-going house and shortage, the nature of our town and city centres continually changing and with the reality of the journey to net zero becoming clearer than ever, there has never been a greater need for an effective planning framework. There will no doubt be different opinions across the chamber regarding those proposals. However, Parliament will be in agreement about many of the stated priorities of the framework. It is surprising that certain important aspects of the planning are not featured within the revised NPF 4 as prominently as we should have and we thought they might be. For example, a successful planning framework should be clear about how it will improve the form of buildings as well as just the function. We can all agree that principles such as ensuring that just transition, promoting local living and revitalising rural communities fully deserve to be placed at the centre of this important framework. Indeed, given the importance of the NPF 4, it is perhaps disappointing that stakeholders were not given more time to fully scrutinise those proposals. Certain stakeholders such as the ASSC and Heads of Planning Scotland have even suggested that the process has felt rushed. Planning authorities need clarity about the direction when it comes to the NPF 4, but it is important that stakeholders are fully involved in each state of the process and that they are given enough time to fully reflect that. That being said, I would welcome and I do welcome the revised draft that includes sufficient improvements compared to the original draft that was set out in November 2021 in response to many and an array of stakeholders' comments. The minister has already acknowledged that in his statement. In particular, I welcome the addition of the delivery of frameworks to the stakeholders such as the Scottish Renewables and Homes for Scotland have highlighted. There were within the programme and there still needs much more to be done on that, and that needs to be recognised. I think that it has been by many within the sector minister, but we have to think about how that is being planned. The Heads of Planning Scotland are right to highlight that the current delivery programme fails to provide enough clarity on issues such as funding for local councils and partner organisations. For example, there is still uncertainty about the resourcing of local authorities in planning departments, and that has already been raised by a number of speakers already, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be before we conclude this afternoon. Heads of Planning Scotland have stated that there are still serious concerns about resources. That has to be looked at in the reality about where we are. There are serious concerns about resources, and our own local government housing and planning committee has stated that the issues appeared to be the biggest obstacle to delivering NPF4, and that is the clear assurances that are needed from government around the whole idea of how things are funded. NPF4 correctly states that planning authorities will be key stakeholders in delivering it, as it stands for, but it is not clear if departments are equipped to step up to the role. That is disappointing. Addressing the issue has only made some of the challenges more fundamental. Corsair has set out whether the Scottish Government's most recent budget means that services will now be at breaking point. The risk of that and the knock-on effect on delivery of any future planning should now be understood. Going forward, the onus will be for the Scottish Government to ensure that successful delivery of NPF4 is not hindered by local government funds. I would also like to touch on the framework that might access small businesses, particularly those in the tourism sector. The ASSC has pointed out that the traditional self-catering sector is already facing an increasing burden due to the introduction of short-term leasing scheme. Policy 30 and the further restrictions that might impose on the sector risk further regularity burdens. That is not where we want to be when we are trying to support small businesses. In taking forward NPF4, the Government must ensure that there is careful consideration on how policy 30 will work in practice and whether the sector will be able to properly thrive. Those benches have made it very clear that the NPF4 must be a framework to protect interests of local communities. It must deliver housing, environmental and biodiversity. It must achieve, while also assuring that businesses have the freedom that they support to prosper. They need to thrive and survive, and the framework should be there to ensure that they do that. There are certain areas in it that are causing them real concerns. To achieve that, the Scottish Government must ensure that local government is properly resourced and that it listens to the feedback of all the stakeholders and businesses. Clarity is important when it comes to communities. Communities themselves want to see the process work. They have engaged in length and breadth of the country, but they are still concerned that there is some way still to go. In conclusion, while the Parliament will in no doubt have a role to play in improving the framework in the future, it should be those very communities that are placed at the centre of the process. The whole idea of ensuring that the national planning framework 4 is not important, but the draft that we have in front of us today and the way that it is going forward are important. However, as it stands, there is still work to be done. There are still communities to be listened to. Far from the framework being delivered, it has to be community-led. It has to be delivered on the priorities that are set forward. Within that, that is still not the case. I warmly thank the minister for his unequivocal reaffirmation of the Scottish Government's commitment to dualling the A9 from Perth in Burness and the A96 in my constituency. That is very welcome. I look forward to his ministerial colleagues coming before this Parliament in a matter of weeks to flesh out the details about how that will be implemented and when. In exchange for his commitment, I will be supporting the motion today just to relay any free song of concern to the country that might exist in the whips office. I have caveats. I just wanted, without detracting from the good work that the minister has done, which rightly has been recognised across the chamber, to raise one particularly serious matter that needs to be looked at carefully, certainly in the implementation of the framework, if not the framework itself, but in some of the detail of the wording. That relates to rural Scotland, to housing, to farmers, crofters and land managers. I found in the NPF, and I read it this morning, but I do not pretend to be any expert, but I saw references to aquaculture, to forestry, even life sciences in rural Scotland, to tourism, a lengthy section. That was all welcome. The planning document says that these are really important to rural Scotland, but there was one glaring emission. That is farming. I could find scant reference. I could actually find one word. Farmers mention once. Maybe I missed it elsewhere, but scant reference to farmers and perhaps more important than that, no clear statement that we value what our farmers, crofters and land managers do. They look after the land, they look after our soil, they conserve water, they produce healthy food and they are the caretakers of mother nature. Before the term became used in common parlance, they were conservationists. They did not realise it, but they were. They have been for centuries, and they have collectively the responsibility to look after nearly 80 per cent of Scotland's land. The first point that I make, Minister, is that there should be a high-level recognition. We value farmers, we value the food that they provide for us, we value the contribution to food security, which we cannot take for granted any more in Ukraine and Brexit globalisation disruption. We cannot assume, as we did in the past, take for granted that everything will be on our plate, everything will be in the shelves of every supermarket every day. The world is not like that any more. I urge you to consider that those high-level commitments should be stated. That would also show farmers that we care, we value what they do, and we do across the chamber, by and large, because they feel beleaguered at the moment. I have certainly taken intervention, Mr Breaks. I thank the member for taking intervention. During his time as rural affairs minister, he will be aware of the need for new entrants to be able to enter, often getting an older father out of farming. I feel that that has been missed from this. Would he also support calls for the Government to take forward more work around that? To be fair, it is mentioned in detail in paragraph 31 and 32 of policy 31, but I agree that more needs to be done. It is not an easy thing to do, but I was going to come on to suggest that, as well as a high-level commitment, there needs to be some detail here. One particular thing that I did seek to do when I was not a humble backbencher but an important person like the minister there, was to do what they were doing in England. We should be able to learn from England sometimes, and they have permitted development rights for every farm to have up to five houses. There are caveats in that, admittedly, but why do we not have that? Farmers in Scotland, the average net worth of a farm in Scotland, owner-occupied, is £1.4 million. The average net worth of a tenancy farm is £373,000 than the latest stats that I saw. That capital, if you think that there are 50,000 holdings in Scotland, amounts to tens of billions of pounds of capital that is sleeping. I do not think that I have got the time. I am very sorry. I would want to do that. Why do we not put that capital to work? Why do we not allow farmers, crofters and land managers and estates to use their land with more flexibility and less difficulty? In rural Scotland, development is the Cinderella. I have learnt that over 23 years of struggling with constituents who desperately want to do something with their land. They want to benefit their family, but they are held back by petafogging matters of microscopic significance all too often. To be fair, the policy makes some progress, but the restrictions are far too complicated. You can have a housing on a farm, but only if it is for affordable housing. What about mid-market rent housing? You have to prove, if you want diversification, that it is not going to harm the farming effort. How do you do that? Why should you really have to do that, since diversification adds significantly to the income of farmers, 53,000 as opposed to 37,000 with non-diversify units? In conclusion, I hope that I have my point across today to the minister. I thank him and his collegiate commitment to the A9 and the A926. It may be that I will mention that again in this Parliament before very long. Paul Sweeney, to be followed by Ruth Maguire, up to six minutes. I rise to support and principle the idea of the national planning framework that it is trying to achieve, but I cannot help but continue to feel a bit like it is a missed opportunity. A lot of what is described in it is not exceptionally different to what has gone before. It is the same generalities in many cases. That is what gives me cause for worry. On the face of it, nothing is desperately concerning. It is about how that translates into local development plans that will be the tester, whether that is successful or not. That is where we still have a great degree of potential to fall flat. Particularly in the context in which it will be loaded on to planning departments, which have already seen vast cuts to resources. I think of Glasgow particularly, which has had a headline budget cut of 10 per cent over the last decade, which is projected on to the planning department of something in the order of 60 per cent cut over the decade. Those are the kind of back-of-office functions that the council tries to hammer first to protect things such as social work, etc. I am worried that it is falling on fallow resource to get that working. Although there are aspects of it that are laudable, I also worry that things get hacked quite regularly by pretty canny developers. A good example within the national spatial strategy is discussing the idea of reusing vacant and derelict land, enhancing natural and built environments and protecting heritage assets. It is now declaring an interest as a trustee of the Glasgow City Heritage Trust and someone who regularly spars with developers trying to destroy a Glasgow's built environment. I encounter this quite frequently where the exact four definitions within the NPF4 about what constitutes permissible ways to demolish a listed building are regularly abused and hacked by developers. Here is a good example. Building is incapable of physical repair and reuse, as verified through a detailed structural condition survey report. Regularly, those surveys are produced by people who are in cahoots with the developer who have complete lack of professional integrity and will lay it on thick to justify demolition of perfectly salvageable buildings to achieve profit maximisation for a developer who wants to build something that is cheaper. For example, they avoid having to incur VAT at 20 per cent to renovate the building as opposed to zero per cent to demolish it and build something new. It creates a perverse incentive and there is a whole ecosystem of corruption around this, which militates against the preservation of a historic environment. I am afraid that the four rules, as defined, are so vague and so loose that they are quite regularly hacked by those pretty unscrupulous characters. I would encourage the minister to look at that in particular and engage in a way in tightening up. One example, which could be improved, is to ensure that the survey of those buildings and whether they are structurally capable of repair is carried out by a conservation accredited structural engineer. In that case, there are actually two organisations or two firms in Scotland that are conservation accredited, but if that were made a statutory requirement, it would immediately improve the integrity with which the process is carried out. Yes, I have to give way. I sympathise with the point that the member is making about VAT and the perverse incentives in it. Would he call upon the UK Government to remove that perverse incentive? Absolutely. I regularly made that plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I sat in the House of Commons. I think that there are other ways that this Parliament could address that. For example, I know that the Historic Environment Scotland has been looking at ways to create an offset or VAT rebate scheme for buildings on the at-risk register. Maybe there are targeted ways that we could try to ameliorate that issue in Scotland, but yes, you are correct. There is also an interesting proposal that has been brought forward by the Chartered Institute of Building. I know that the member freeze loading has been looking at this as well around the demolition levy, which could at least level the playing field the other way, so that if you were to want to demolish a building, you would have to pay a fee. That would, through the other way, offset that perverse incentive. It suggests that a Conservative estimate that it would raise £1.5 million per annum, which could potentially supercharge the Historic Environment Scotland's heritage and place fund, for example. We should be looking at and encouraging the minister to look at how we connect that up to economic incentives and price signals that would drive good behaviour and try to bake that in at least to the standards that we set for local development plans and perhaps provide that overarching national framework through something like a demolition levy that could help to reinforce what local authorities can achieve. Similarly, through things like compulsory sale orders, as opposed to having compulsory purchase powers, which present a significant financial constraint on local authorities, only tend to pursue compulsory purchase offers such as the Barclays complex in Glasgow's Tradston, where the Beco building, which one of its predecessors, Patricia Ferguson, successfully protected from Glasgow City Council's attempt to demolish it about 20 years ago, is now being converted into Barclays' Eagle Labs. A be listed warehouse coming off the buildings at risk register, despite the efforts of Glasgow City Council 20 years ago. That was done as a result of a back-to-back compulsory purchase order to clean up the messy ownership. There were like 20, 30 different owners, some of them were dead, some of them were Virgin Islands or Cayman Islands or somewhere, to clean up that and get it packaged up and transferred so that it could be developed. Those are the sort of mechanisms that we need to start bringing into the system so that we can actually get effective positive outcomes to get the buildings off the buildings at risk register. That's about 108 in Glasgow today. We've got 2,659 empty homes in Glasgow, as we speak. We've got over three million square foot of unused floor space in Glasgow city centre. That's 450 vacant buildings in Glasgow city centre, equivalent to the Freedom Tower in New York of empty floor space. Glasgow city centre itself has the lowest population density of any city centre in the UK, with only about 30,000 Manchester and over 100,000. That introduces all sorts of problems when it comes to density and creating these so-called 20-minute neighbourhoods. To crack this, we need to get these price signals sorted. That's where this NPF4 does not connect up properly. I'd like to say that, whilst the price of it is good, we need to do much more to get those signals sorted because of so much perverse incentive in it all. I can advise the chamber that there is no time in hand, so members will have to stick to their time limits, including if they take interventions. I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Mark Ruskell up to six minutes. As the minister said in opening, planning is not just about place but also about people. The final national planning framework for makes it clear that Scotland won't compromise on the climate crisis and empowering communities. While the document and debate might not get much public attention in terms of how we live, work and play, NPF4 is really important. It's a plan for the type of Scotland that we want to live in. Welcome proposals in NPF4 include enabling more renewable energy generation to support the transition away from reliance on fossil fuels while protecting national parks and national scenic areas and supporting emerging low-carbon technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture and developments that unlock the transformative potential of offshore renewable energy. As the cabinet secretary laid out in his statement yesterday, the opportunity that it provides to grow Scotland's highly skilled energy workforce, increase jobs and energy generation on the supply chain, whilst enabling communities and businesses to prosper, is vast and welcome. Over and above protecting national parks and national scenic areas, which are, of course, really important, I would be keen to see brownfield sites used for such projects and would welcome, as I believe with the majority of my Ayrshire constituents, the use of previously developed land not in use rather than new developments on land currently used for farming or leisure wherever that is possible. I've previously raised in chamber my constituents in Lylestone who told me that they feel they're on a David and Goliath scale fight with a company proposing to build a large solar farm on farmland next to their village. They expressed worry and anger about the fact that the company concerned was acting as though the project was a foregone conclusion. I sought and received reassurance from the Scottish Government that that's absolutely not the case and that the concerns and objections of residents of the village who'd be most impacted by the proposed development would be taken seriously. Impact assessment and mitigation remain vital to community wellbeing and I note that NPF4 policies do not give a blank check to developers to build on wild land. Community consent to large-scale renewable projects is important and I think that there's more work to do in this regard, particularly around so-called community benefit. A few thousand pounds for a community council to distribute doesn't cut it anymore, I don't think. Citizens should benefit from clean green energy being produced. NPF4 facilitates active travel infrastructure, low-carbon transport and more green spaces. Good news for the nation's health and wellbeing. I will give way. Minister. It was just picking up on that last point. I wonder if Ruth Maguire would welcome the introduction of a dedicated policy in community wealth building. She will be very familiar from her own part of the world with tremendous work that is under way in community wealth building. That should agree with me that is some mechanism by which we can harness many of the economic benefits to come from increasing our onshore renewables. Ruth Maguire. Absolutely. There's huge potential in that and I do welcome it. NPF4 facilitates active travel infrastructure, low-carbon transport and more green spaces. Good news for the nation's health and wellbeing. We know that opportunities to be outdoors and active not only have a restorative impact on those with existing physical and mental health issues but can actually prevent ill health in the first place. I would want to note that in developing active travel infrastructure it's crucial to consider all users who will be walking, wheeling or cycling. The news this morning highlighted a shared space not far from us on here in Leith Walk in the capital that doesn't seem to do that and I think that underlines the importance of meaningful consultation and dialogue and consideration of all citizens in developing our public spaces. NPF4 adopts a planned and evidence-based approach to delivering good quality and affordable homes that benefit communities and good quality affordable homes as well as being good for health support valuable local jobs. They're an excellent example of the wellbeing economy that we want to create. I know what colleagues have said about the targets within there and I would just want to acknowledge that M stands for minimum. Evidence-based minimum requirements set an achievable starting point. I think local development plans can be more ambitious and it is locally that the knowledge will sit about the scale and mix of housing that's required in our communities. A fairer and greener planning system can tackle long-standing challenges and inequalities to the benefit of all our communities in Scotland, to the benefit of the environment, to the benefit of our economy. Better places will be an important part of the response to the strategic priorities of net zero, addressing child poverty and growing a wellbeing economy that benefits all our citizens. Planning, of course, can also play a critical role in delivering the national strategy for economic transformation and again that community wealth building that the minister mentioned. At NPF's core line measures that reduce carbon emissions, tackle climate change and restore nature, while providing our communities here in Scotland with sustainable, livable and productive places, it's time to get NPF for in place and begin implementation at pace to the benefit of Scotland's communities, environment and economy. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by O.G. Nicholl, up to six minutes, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, this fourth national planning framework comes at an absolutely critical time. 2023 must be the year of transition and change of bold action to protect people, communities and our planet, but simply we can't afford to waste any more time in that transition. Of course what we plan today could either lock us into climate pollution for decades to come or it could free us from fossil fuels over time. So it is crucial that for the first time the climate and biodiversity crisis has been paced at the heart of the national planning framework. I think we've got a better strategy as a result, one which will help us to meet our targets on climate change and nature recovery in the years to come. It sets the groundwork and this is no longer a plan which only prioritises economic growth above everything else. Our climate, our nature and our wellbeing is finally being considered on an equal footing within the planning system. Critically, all planning decisions must now give significant weight to the climate and nature crises. Development proposals must minimise greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and development proposals will have to contribute to biodiversity enhancement. So this NPF is putting us finally on the right path. But like previous frameworks it does of course sit alongside and in tandem with other strategies including the strategic transport projects review, the biodiversity strategy and of course the new energy strategy that was announced for consultation only yesterday. Taken together these will chart the course for Scotland's net zero future and I think it also sits alongside the fresh commitment that the government has made to develop a net zero budget test as well to accelerate spending away from high carbon to low carbon capital projects. So the picture here is that everything now must point in the direction of net zero and NPF is an absolutely critical part of that landscape. So let's take energy policy in the NPF. We are in a climate crisis, we desperately need that transformation and NPF 4 lays the ground for significant expansion of renewables in Scotland. Onshore wind is the cheapest green energy source and it has a huge role to play in cutting emissions and our energy bills at the same time. Expanding our onshore wind capacity was a central commitment in the Bute House agreement and the onshore wind policy statement announced last year confirms that ambition to install an additional 8 to 12 gigawatts of onshore wind capacity, a huge increase in onshore wind capacity. Scotland has an abundance of wind resources and this new policy will put them to use while ensuring that local communities and the whole country benefit from investment and green jobs. An NPF 4 will help us get there by transforming our planning system to facilitate the expansion of renewables while still protecting our beautiful natural environment. Paul Sweeney. I think that he's making a really important point. I would like to ask him more detail on district heat networks, particularly looking at potential for, for example, one building might meet the requirements by putting in air source heat pumps, but might then undermine the critical mass needed for a community district heat network. Perhaps there may be more definition that could be delivered in the local development plan to make sure that we don't undermine the potential and have a kind of tragedy in the common situation. That's a good point and I think that the member will be aware that the local heat and energy efficiency strategies that councils have been tasked to complete will be looking at that mix of installation of embedded renewables within buildings alongside district heating. So it's an important thing that councils need to plan for at that level. Development proposals for all forms of renewables, including wind, will be supported in the planning system, but there will also be that protection against inappropriate development within national parks and national scenic areas. All developments must minimise the negative impact on natural places, local landscape and wild land through improved mitigation measures. We're also seeing this NPF strengthen biodiversity policy, ensuring that it pays attention to biodiversity mitigation hierarchy and learns from a lot of the good practice that we're seeing out there. Developers must also minimise negative impact on local communities and consider issues like public access, including implementing walking and cycling routes. Now these changes in planning have been recognised in the words of renewables industry as a remarkable step forward. It's clear that acceptable renewable developments in the right places must be accelerated rather than languishing in the planning system for years on end and there's simply no time to waste. NPF4 success will be measured by what it delivers, not just by what it says on paper and the review of the delivery plan after six months will be a critical checkpoint. To turn this vision into reality we must support everyone involved in delivering it as much in council planning departments as in our local communities. People must feel empowered to shape the spaces around them. We must also ensure that NPF4 facilitates action needed to tackle the climate and biodiversity challenges. In conclusion, a number of members have mentioned the resourcing of planning authorities. I think that that's an incredibly important point. In terms of Westminster they also need to understand the importance of renewable energy and ensure that in their planning systems they're not approving developments such as new coal mines while also looking progressively at renewable energy such as new coal mines. While also looking progressively at renewable energy such as onshore wind, which can make a lasting contribution to the UK's ambitions to cut climate emissions and deliver energy security. I welcome the Greens, I welcome this national planning framework, we welcome the scrutiny that Parliament has given it and we welcome the progress and the action that's to come on the back of it. I'm very pleased to speak in today's debate in support of the fourth national planning framework and I want to thank all the organisations that provided briefings for the debate including First Bus, Scottish Lands and Estates, Homes for Scotland, Scottish Renewables and others. For me they were an extremely important additional source of reference. They were also an illustration of the breadth and reach of MPF4 in underpinning reform in our planning system so that we're positioned to play a key role in addressing the challenges of climate and nature. The revised draft MPF4 reflects the range of changes made by virtue of the representations made during consultation and the report prepared by the local government committee. I commend the committee's follow-up report on the response to the concerns raised around containing its response to the concerns raised around the original draft. I'll come back to the work of the NZ Committee on MPF4 later in my contribution. I note the committee's positive response to the significant improvements made in the revised draft, the new emphasis on climate and biodiversity and the increased clarity and focus it will offer decision makers. In terms of monitoring MPF4, I'm very pleased to note the committee's desire to hear from planners on their experience of applying climate change and biodiversity principles and the extent to which they have sufficient clarity and support to make their decisions. The north-east is rightly positioning itself as a centre for energy transition. However, to date I believe the debate has derived from an industry context. Now MPF4 offers an important opportunity to refocus the debate on how our transition will impact our land use and development. In my constituency in the north-east, planning continues to appear front and centre of constituent concerns and inquiries. For example, the transport infrastructure around the new south harbour currently under construction and that is featured in MPF4. Pollution concerns relating to an energy from waste plant currently under construction. Perhaps the biggest issue is the inclusion of a community green space for development in the Aberdeen city local development plan. It is very likely to be the subject of a future renewables planning application. All significant projects all within metres of some of the lowest standard council housing in the city. It is no surprise local folk feel that there has been little evidence of a planning system that supports our quality of life and health and wellbeing, enables community benefit for everyone and improves and strengthens the special character of our places. I should point out that those descriptors were included as suggested questions in the Scottish Government guidance for community events on MPF4 in order to stimulate thinking about how the planning system might be delivered. Planning really matters to our communities as others have highlighted our businesses, public services and the future wellbeing and prosperity of generations to come. I welcome the committee's view that for MPF4 to succeed it is critical that communities are not only engaged in the planning process but their ambitions for their areas where they live are also realised. I agree with the... Paul Sweeney. Would the member agree that accessibility to the planning system is a massive impediment? There are often huge, very complex documents to digest and the onus is very much on communities to organise themselves to deal with that in very fleeting moments of time. I agree that maybe that is something that we need to look at about making that process more accessible for communities. 100 per cent. I thank the member for his intervention. I totally agree with that. I have had a lot of contact with constituents who have had that very experience. Anything that makes the process more accessible, I wholly welcome. All significant projects and all within metres of some of the lowest standard council housing in the city, so it is no surprise that people feel developed on. Planning really matters to our communities, businesses, public services and our future generations. I welcome the committee's view that for MPF4 to succeed it is critical that communities are not only engaged in the planning process but their ambitions for their areas where they live are realised. Earlier this week, the Scottish Government published its draft energy strategy and transition plan that outlines Scotland's transition away from fossil fuels. In its briefing, Scottish Renewables outlined MPF4 as providing a key opportunity to deliver a net zero driven planning system that will support Scotland reach its net zero target. While supporting low-carbon investment, caring for our environment and, importantly, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. I want to pick up on a point made by the NSET committee around the delay and churn associated with applications taking too long, potentially putting projects at some risk. That is an issue that I have raised in the chamber in the past and I will be closely monitoring going forward. I would be interested in any comment that the minister has on that. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I welcome the draft MPF4 and look forward to hearing the minister's response to the issues raised in debate this afternoon. I now call Graham Simpson to be followed by Katie Clark up to six minutes. Thank you very much. It is an absolute pleasure to be taking part in the debate today. The very fact that we are having it is down to amendments that were voted through during the passage of the planning bill in the last session for which I was responsible. Members may do well to reflect, though, that I do not think that if that bill was going through Parliament now, those amendments would get through, but it is good that they did. Kevin Stewart was the minister at the time and it was certainly a stressful time for Mr Stewart, but we ended up with a bill that was better than it was at the start, though it was not perfect. That is where we are today with MPF4, I think. The first draft was flawed in many ways. The final version is better, but it still has some holes in it. I do think that we have a minister in Tom Arthur who I have a lot of time for who has listened and he has made changes which are for the better. Any minister who does that should be praised, and I praise him, but in planning, as he knows, he can never please everyone. I will start with the good bits. I strongly believe that the planning system has not been robust enough when it comes to protecting the environment, particularly in three areas, Woodlands, Wildland and Greenbelt. Now, wording matters when it comes to planning policy and wooly wording provides developers and landowners with loopholes which they can exploit. Paul Sweeney referenced that. The first draft of MPF4 would have made it too easy for woods to be erased and for wildland to be built on. I met with the John Muir Trust and the Woodland Trust, of which I am a member, to discuss what we could propose to the minister which would be better. We came up with something and I sent the wording to Mr Arthur, myself and Mr Briggs, then had a virtual meeting with him and one of his officials. I heard nothing after that, but the revised draft was considerably better. People are generally happy. The wording is better than it was. However, policy 6C is an example of the wooly wording that I referred to earlier. It says that development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits in accordance with relevant Scottish Government policy on woodland removal. Can he developers will be able to argue that their fantastic scheme with footpaths and swingparks achieves just that when it doesn't? I am grateful to Simpson for giving away. Does he acknowledge, however, that the control about forestry operations, including felling and planting, is very much controlled by the forestry standards, which exist apart from the planning system and which ensure good practice and that the ills committed in the 80s about mis-planting and so on cannot take place now? The NPF4 does not really set out to control the mischief that the member is arguing exists as a responsibility of the NPF. I am sure that Mr Ewing is right, but I was referring not necessarily to forests but areas of woodland that are slightly different. The policy goes on that where woodland is removed compensatory planting will most likely be expected to be delivered. Most likely? Well, that's pretty meaningless and anyway compensatory planting is never the same as what was there before. The wording is better but it's still not quite good enough for me. The references to wildland are much better and policy 8 on green belts look pretty robust, but to refer to the point made by Fergus Ewing earlier on farmers, it should not be the case that farmers have to pretend that new houses are being built for workers in order to get them built. That's the case at the moment. The planning system can play a huge role in helping to drive down emissions and I note the gushing response of Scottish renewables to Mr Arthur's offering, but I'll never agree with the current Scottish Government's view that nuclear should play no part at all in that. Miles Briggs and others have mentioned the lack of policies to deliver enough housing in the right places and of the right quality. Targets and how to set them and then make sure they are delivered has been a big debating point. I have to agree with the house building industry that there are floors here and the MPF4 is not going to deliver enough housing. It's vital that as the RTPI have said that we have enough resources because councils are going to have to deliver all this on all this. The planning act introduced 49 unfunded duties to councils. That could cost up to £59 million over 10 years to implement and councils haven't been given the money. How on earth are they meant to deliver all Mr Arthur's exciting policies if they don't have enough planners? I think that it's good but it could be better. How we use land and the type of development that we allow is vital for all communities. Whether we have industrial development or not, the demise of our town centres, the continuing closure of high street department stores, the expansion of out-of-town shopping centres, whether we build houses and how we construct those houses, are all affected by the decisions that we make here and the detail of MPF4 and local development plans. As has been said already, this process transfers power from communities and local councils so we need to get the detail right. That is an important debate, not least because the planning system in Scotland is imbalanced and communities do not have the same rights of appeal to planning decisions as developers. As has been said a number of times in this debate, there is also an imbalance due to the resources that developers have. Currently, I am meeting with a number of community campaigns that are attempting to consider literally hundreds of pages of documents in order to respond to proposals that affect their communities. The campaign for equal rights of appeal, which is backed by hundreds of community and environmental groups, is still absent in planning law in Scotland and I think is an important aspect of this debate. I very much welcome the repeated comments by the minister, the convener of the committee and many others of the importance of engagement and consultation. Like many others in this chamber, I have literally spent hours with campaigns, community organisations and individuals trying to get their voices heard within the planning process. Sometimes they have been successful with their campaigns. I listened, for example, with interest to what Mark Ruskell and Ruth Maguire were saying in relation to planning applications for renewables. One of the local community campaigns near Scamily, which was successful, was the Rigghill wind farm proposals, which were opposed by almost every part of the community for many, many miles around. It took many years to defeat those proposals. I think that most of us would agree that it is only when constituents have something happening near them that they begin to realise how important the debate that we are having today—NPF4, the local development plans and all the work that goes into those documents are and how they literally affect people's lives. I very much welcome that the Government has looked again at the initial proposals that were come forward and all the representations that are being made is that there is considerable improvement in the documents that we are considering today. I think that we still are in a position where there is much that needs to be done to improve our planning process. There have been a number of references to the cuts and staffing levels in planning departments. That is a real issue that is affecting councils up and down the country. The real-term cuts to local government core revenue budgets are obviously not going to help in ensuring that adequate resources are put on those issues. We all know that we are in the midst of a housing crisis. There are an estimated 112,000 properties unoccupied at any time in this country, nearly 30,000 of which have been empty for over a year, and over 130,000 people are homeless or are waiting lists in Scotland. As homes for Scotland point out, there are still no mechanisms for fixing on delivering a pipeline of land if longer term sites do not come forward to fill the gaps. That is an issue that I know in England. There is a different approach and there are proactive attempts to get building in certain places. Given that we are looking at local development plans that are set to last for another 10 years, that is a concerning position that we are in. We need to seriously look at how we intervene to ensure that we have land available for housing development where we need it. That is the case in areas where we have brownfield sites. It is the case in areas such as Ireland, such as Arran, where land shortage is a major problem in relation to housing problems. I believe that, yes, it is welcome that the Government has come forward and has made changes. I note everything that has been said in terms of the incorporation of some of the climate change and environmental standards that, of course, must dictate the planning regime that operates. However, we also need to look at how we make sure that the voices of individuals and communities are far stronger in those processes. It is not a top-down system that does not reflect what communities are saying. Often communities know what is best for their locality. Communities need to make sure that they have a strong voice in that process. I hope that, as we go forward with the framework and within the local development plans, we will also look at how we ensure that the voices of individuals and communities are heard strongly in individual decisions. Emma Harper is the final speaker in the open debate, after which we will move to the closing speeches, and everybody who has participated will be expected to be in the chamber up to six minutes. I am pleased that we now have this debate on the national planning framework number four, which clearly focuses on empowering communities to make change. I support that motion. The revised draft of the NPF4 lays out sustainable policies to guide Scotland's net zero planning approach for the next decade. I have been actively involved in NPF4 in particular in two specific areas that I will focus on today. One is vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, especially in our rural towns, and the other is permitted development rights. The minister has been very supportive with me on both of those matters. First, I brought the issue to Parliament right before the recess, and the legacy of Scotland's industrial past means that almost a third of the Scottish population currently lives within 500 metres of a derelict site. It is 11,000 hectares of derelict land that is equivalent to 9,000 football pitches. We took evidence at health committee and, additionally, research shows that living near these eyesore, blighted derelict sites affects the mental health of a community. The benefits of addressing derelict sites are therefore obvious. The Scottish Land Commission says that heels are being dragged when it comes to bringing about the change needed. It also says that addressing derelict sites has been dumped on the too difficult pile. It is interesting to just reiterate from the commission that it is seen as too big, too complex and too expensive to fix. That simply isn't true. We need to stop telling ourselves that it can't be done and we need to recognise that transforming derelict sites is a massive opportunity. I thank the member for giving me a thousand of those football pitches around Glasgow, which is a big issue for my city for sure. We really need to look at ways in which we can communicate that negative transmission of blight on to a community, on to the owner of that land, perhaps through a punitive charge on rates, so that they are forced to do something with it or sell it on to someone who will. That's a great point that Paul Swinney has made there. I'm actually coming on to issues around owners in my comments coming up. Many proposals in the national planning framework 4 include reference to sites and policies to address derelict sites such as incentivising brownfield regeneration, including for derelict sites, which will allow the brownfield sites to be transformed into housing community spaces or whatever the community chooses. Two examples of regeneration are the Clyde Gateway project, which the minister visited recently, and the Cunningham housing transformation of the vacant primary school in Lockerbie into a community hub. I'm happy to facilitate a visit with the minister there also. The revised NPF form makes clear that Scotland won't compromise on the climate crisis and empowering communities. We have many derelict sites in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, such as the George Hotel and the East Pier and Strunrar, the interfloor gates factory in Dumfries, Central Hotel in Arnan and the Mercury Hotel in Moffitt, and then two in the Borders in Hoiq, NPL and the Glenmack buildings, and many others too. In trying to address these sites, I've faced numerous challenges with the owners and local authorities. Councils respond to me saying that they've got limited powers and it's hard to even elicit response from the registered owners. That's one of the challenges that we really need to figure out what we can do about that. I want to briefly highlight what local authorities can do and then I'll show how this is enhanced with NPF4. Local authorities can already issue a wasteland notice requiring an owner or person responsible to take specific action on a site. If the responsible person refuses, the local authority can carry out work themselves and claim back the cost from the owner under the Town and Country Plan in Scotland Act 1997. Also under the Building Scotland Act 2003, councils can issue a dangerous buildings notice. In addition, the local authority or community can, under the Land Reform Act 2003, compulsory purchase building or land to act on it. Those are not unsubstantial powers. I know that the Government is committed to compulsory sale orders in the future. NPF4 will be powered through significant public and private investment. I don't think that I've got time, Mr Briggs. We know that NPF4 will be powered through the significant public and private investment with cross-government cooperation. It will identify funding streams through infrastructure investment plan and the place-based investment programme. Those funding streams will open up the possibility for local authorities and private investors to access funding streams, particularly which could allow for the transformation of our brownfield derelict sites. It is welcome, but I ask the minister to clearly communicate with local authorities and private partners regarding what funding possibilities there are and how NPF4 can transform our derelict sites. Turning briefly to permitted development, I welcome that NPF4 will address the legal loophole that caused numerous issues in my region. Shooting activity, including shooting using high-velocity weapons of up to 50 calibre, is currently allowed to take place without planning permission. Permitted development rights are used. Class 15 of the town and country planning, General Permitted Development Scotland, Order 1992, allow for a temporary use of land for a different purpose for up to 28 days in a calendar year. The 28-day rule has been capitalised to include shooting activities. I thank the minister for listening to me on this matter and the commitment in NPF4 that permitted development will be reformed. I look forward to progress on that. In conclusion, NPF4 marks a turning point in Scotland's planning system and a boost to our just transition journey. It is time to get NPF4 in place and begin implementation. Ms Harper, we now move to the closing speeches and I call Mark Griffin up to six minutes, Mr Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Earlier on in opening, I said that this is not the finished product and made clear that we will give our approval this evening but do look for the minister to make good on his commitment to deal with the issues that we feel are outstanding. We still do not have the confidence that we feel we should have that the framework will do enough to end the housing crisis that is gripping this country, particularly affecting young people since they are largely ignored by the Honda figures. We think that fewer starter homes that families can rent or purchase as their first home will be built as a result of them being ignored from those figures. Miles Briggs alluded to in his opening speech that this morning the Royal Town Planning Institute of Scotland issued its verdict on the national planning framework for the welcome framework. However, it has said that success depends on the being planners to do the job that new resources to support its delivery are required. The stark reminder that planning department staff have been cut by a third since 2009. After-speaker in today's debate has hammered home that those cuts have consequences. Major housing development applications, which I think that there are not enough of to tackle our housing crisis, are waiting time for applications to be processed averages at 54.3 weeks last year. That is a number that has spiralled probably directly proportional to or inversely proportional to the number of staff that we have in local authorities to deal with them. The institute says that planning authorities are overstretched, that significant upskilling of the workforce is needed and that the delivery programme, which needs to be fit for purpose and still found wanting, needs a comprehensive skills and resource strategy. According to research, the profession, which already has a stretched pipeline, needs over 680 entrants into the sector over the lifetime of this new planning framework document. With 49 unfunded duties to local authorities, which could cost almost £60 million over the same period, planning departments are clearly creaking up the seams. That will have a huge impact on delivering the laudable ambitions, the many ambitions that we support seeing them come to fruition. This is an area that I have asked questions of the minister. Previously, he told me that he was working closely with COSLA and Heads of Planning Scotland to make sure that we all have a common understanding of the pressures faced by the planning services. I think that fees have increased, but the opinion of those services is that they do not stretch far enough. I also want to echo the points that have been made strongly by a number of colleagues throughout the debate. That is the progress that has been made to promote and protect our natural environment. The extent of nature depletion in Scotland over recent decades has been frightening, so it is absolutely right that priority is given to the nature and climate crisis throughout the document. The measures have been welcomed by many speakers in a debate today, but also by the likes of RSPB, who believe that the framework can secure delivery for positive effects for biodiversity. The key area that the RSPB cited with outstanding concerns was about the wording of policy 4B, which relates to European science policy and which, if unresolved, could lead to significant risks for our most important protected sites for nature and feel that the wording should be tightened. I have also had representations from West Lothian Council who highlight concerns that the local nature reserves, which have statutory designation under the 1949 National Parks Act, are not included, but given that there will be key nodes in the make-up of nature networks in that the 30-predicted area target that that should be rectified to. Another opportunity to bring in legal requirements to enhance biodiversity is the natural environment bill. Given the Environment Act in England established targets and has created a step change in attitudes and actions towards biodiversity through planning and construction, we feel that that is another opportunity. As I said at the outset, this is by no means a finished product, with guidance and monitoring issues and the need for a proper delivery plan with real resources outstanding. Scottish Labour will approve the framework but will look to the minister to continue to deliver on his commitments to deal with the outstanding issues, and I think he has his work cut out but will support it at 5 o'clock. I would like to thank all those organisations that have emailed us all with briefings as well over the last couple of weeks that have been very helpful. I would like to start by congratulating the minister on two things today. The first is that he listened to real concerns raised over the previous draft in coming back with an improved version. It is better but still falls short in some key areas, as we have heard from previous speakers. I would also like to congratulate the minister and his forward of this document by admitting that planning is fully devolved, but once again stating that if we were independent that everything would be better, showing in black and white that this SNP green devolved government would take any topic and try to turn it into an independence debate. I first encountered this piece of legislation as a council leader at COSLA. Many concerns were raised there at the time, and to be fair it is heartening to see many of those concerns answered. My colleague Graham Simpson mentioned some of those in terms of Woodland and the Green Belt. I agree with him that the planning system has not been robust enough when it comes to protecting the environment. There remains a disconnect between local communities residents and our planning system. I recognise that the MPF4 is attempting to bridge that gap, but only time will tell whether we will see success in that or not. I also welcome the minister will be coming back with details on how 20-minute neighbourhoods can work in rural areas. It is too simplistic to ask communities to abandon their cars and move to public transport when no public transport is available, or if it is unreliable, slow or often uncomfortable. Roads will still be important. Does Douglas Lumson have any idea what a 20-minute neighbourhood is? I do not. Douglas Lumson raised a very good point, but we will hopefully find out more as the minister comes back. As Fergus Ewing once said, we should be anti-emission, not anti-car. I also welcome that the minister has said that his Government is committed to fully dualling the A9 and A96. I would like to remind him that the commitment is fully dualled by 2030. Like Fergus Ewing, I will remind him and his colleagues about that commitment. I note that the press and journal are reporting today that the free ports are going to be in 4th and Cromarty, so the A96 dylan is going to be vital for the north-east. One place that you will not need a road to is drive-throughs. It seems that this devolved Government wants to ban drive-throughs. Once again, we have the junior partner in this coalition of chaos pulling the strings. This ban seems to come from left field with no opportunity for those businesses affected to give comment because it never appeared before. No, I won't. The minister may not like drive-throughs, but they bring jobs, they pay rates and they bring investment and they provide a service and this policy is just plain wrong. I welcome the minister's comments earlier about a potential U-turn, but we should not have got into this situation. I will give way now. I am very grateful to Mr Lumsden for giving way. I am conscious of the reports following the publication of the revised draft in the 8th of November. To be categorical, it would be absolutely clear that there is no ban on drive-throughs. I have been very grateful for the opportunity to meet with representatives of the sector and indeed I have committed to and I will be undertaking work as all my officials with the sector to make sure that transitional guidance and guidance in LDPs is clear. Douglas Lumsden. As I said earlier, I welcome that, but surely we should not have gotten into a situation where many organisations feel that there was a ban coming, so hopefully you can get that cleared up. I also agree that we should have a town centre first approach, but I am concerned that this framework will make it hard for businesses like garden centres that need to be out of time to be granted permission. Time will tell on the interpretation, but I would have liked to have seen guidance issued on what out of time development would be permitted. I have not got time, sorry. Another area of concern is housing. It has been a key contribution from Miles Briggs earlier. I have been a member here for 20 months now and a topic that comes up time and time again is housing. We have a housing crisis and this Government continually missed its own housing targets. We need to be building good quality affordable energy efficient homes and we need to build them faster and to do that we need land to build and I do not see enough in this framework to solve our housing crisis. As Miles Briggs told us, there were 28,000 households homeless, but Mark Griffin said that that number could be too low and that that number could be a lot, lot higher. Miles Briggs pointed out that there is land earmarked for housing, but it is present and is occupied by car dealerships and so on. Where are those businesses going to be sent to? Willie Rennie and Emma Harper mentioned issues about brownfield sites and it is not easy to develop on those and it is also expensive. What incentives or what penalties may be put in place to encourage those developments? I was up on my feet earlier attempting but we talked about derelict sites and Paul Sweeney made a really valid poll on VAT and you said that planning is completely devolved, but VAT is an inhibitor for developing sites. I wonder if the member could reflect on that. I will reflect on something and let's see what comes forward in the future. Another issue that I want to raise and it's been raised time and time again in this debate is the capacity of local councils to deliver these changes and this policy. As a council leader looking at this and COSDA we asked over and over again will there be extra resource available, but we've seen in successive budgets cuts to local government. As colleagues such as Alexander Stewart have points out this will be an issue with this framework going forward. SNP Green devolved Government continually pushed more and more burdens on to local government while removing their funding and capacity to deliver. In the words of COSDA resource spokesperson they are at absolute breaking point. We've heard today about concerns from Fergus Ewing on the farming and the rural communities. We've seen that this policy lets down our towns and cities and lets down our government partners. I look forward to seeing how this will progress in the future as it will need to improve. To wind up the debate for up to nine minutes. I would like to begin by firstly thanking colleagues from across the chamber for their measured and thoughtful contributions this afternoon. To thank all colleagues who have engaged with me directly or through the work of the committee in the long process of bringing NPF4 to the state that we consider it today. I also want to thank the committee for its diligent work, which has throughout the process been highly constructive and has strengthened the NPF4 that we are considering today. I also want to thank the more than 740 people who have responded to our consultation following the publication of the draft NPF4 in November 2021. To all those who engaged in our original call for ideas and responded to the draft position statement published in November 2020. There are also two particular thank yous that I want to make. That is to the chief planner Fiona Simpson in the Scottish Government and her team, who have been absolutely magnificent and have delivered an incredible piece of work. That has been a mammoth undertaking and much of it was carried out against the backdrop of Covid, which, as with every other facet of government, led to huge challenges being placed upon our planning system. I want to commend all the officials in the Scottish Government who worked so hard to deliver that. Finally, I want to pay a very personal tribute and a very personal thank you to my predecessor Kevin Stewart as planning minister who initiated this process. Without his hard work, both in piloting the planning act 2019 through and in setting the ball rolling on draft NPF4, we would not be at this point today. There are a number of issues that have arisen in the debate and I am afraid that time will not allow me the opportunity to respond to them all in detail. I will try to cover as much as I can as well as some of the specific points that individual members raised. Clearly, housing is one of the most contentious areas within the planning system. We all recognise that. Within planning, we really learn what the meaning of opportunity cost is. You can only use a piece of land once. There are those who would favour a more liberal approach and indeed there are those who would prefer a more regulated approach. What we have sought to achieve through this process with NPF4 and fulfilling our statutory commitments under the planning act is to ensure that we have a plan-led system for housing in Scotland that is suitably flexible and dynamic to respond to circumstances and to ensure that planning is playing its role in delivering the houses that we need. I suggest that planning has a role to play because planning is not the totality of factors that enable housing to take place. There are a range of factors and we will all be very conscious of the significant impacts on the construction sector through supply chain difficulties and challenges in labour recruitment as well as escalating costs due to the cost crisis and indeed challenges in terms of market appetite for housing as a consequence of rising interest rates. So there are a number of factors that come to play in ensuring that we develop the housing that we require certainly. Miles Breaks. For taking this intervention I understand what he is outlining but is he not still concerned that there is no mechanism for fixing and the under delivery of land pipeline and that is something that we should have actually seen part of NPF4 take forward and would he commit to outlining how that will be really monitored because we need to see these homes coming forward? Minister. Member is absolutely correct to recognise the importance of monitoring. I met with Homes for Scotland shortly before Christmas to discuss this in detail. The member will note that I had given the undertaking at committee that my officials would engage with Homes for Scotland on their proposals for review of the Honda system and that is going to be important because ultimately the proof of NPF4 will not be in the high ideals which it embodies but in its delivery and that is clearly going to be the imperative. So monitoring will be important and part of that will come through and part of responding to any issues raised through monitoring will be on guidance and clarification. Local development plans have a significant role to play and yes there will be provisions commenced to allow for amendment of the national planning framework for should that be required but in the first instance it is very important that we observe carefully what is happening on the ground following NPF4's adoption subject to Parliament's agreement this evening. Another issue is the importance of very, very briefly ampish for time. Fair consuming. One simple point minister. Does the minister agree that if farmers are allowed more flexibility to provide housing then that housing can be provided at scale and without any significant cost to the taxpayer because the cost will be met by the farmers using the capital tied up in their land holdings? Minister. Mr Ewing, for his intervention it would just be important to clarify two points. Agriculture is not classified as development for purposes of planning. The existing permitted development regime that we have in Scotland is almost identical to what is in England which is not about the construction of houses but the conversion of agricultural buildings into homes but I'm more than happy to meet with a member to discuss these matters in important detail because rural repopulation and retaining retention of population are key policy imperatives. The issue of communities was raised and that is going to be incredibly important. Our new local development plans will have a key role to play in that through the evidence gathering process in advance of the gate check which precedes the actual proposed plan creation but also the local place plans are going to be incredibly important and important as well and that is something I would encourage all members to engage with their constituents on. The provisions for local place plans were commenced last year but as we move to the new style local development plans over the coming years as local authorities and planning authorities take them forward I would encourage members to engage on that particular area. The issue of resources has come up time and again and I would just repeat the commitments that I have already given to Parliament. This is not something that lends itself to any easy or quick fix. It's going to be challenging but through the work that we do directly with the planning profession through the high level group and indeed part of our broader work on developing a partnership agreement and a fiscal framework with local government we will be tools that will help us to ensure that our planning authorities are resource to the level that is required as well as the work that we are taking forward with the high level group with our TPI and improvement service on the future planners project. Finally, there are some specific points that Willie Rennie had asked about. With regard to the permitted development rights it will be early in the year. I've told to take forward the regulations from the phase 2 review which I know will be of interest to members. Phase 3 will follow in shortly for that but it will be in the first half of this year and I'm happy to engage with any member. With regard to the issue of state support we've already provided £325 million across this parliamentary term through the place-based investment programme. There's also the £50 million vacant and derelict land programme as well which is supporting areas across Scotland to remediate existing derelict land and that can help for a range of things both for community activities, for green infrastructure and also to de-risk and incentivise private investment as well. Again, happy to discuss these matters in more detail if any member would care to. It has been a privilege to lead this process on behalf of the Scottish Government and I hope that I have lived up to the commitment that I gave to lay us closely with this Parliament and its members to engage meaningfully with planners and local authority representatives and with so many people and interests all across Scotland. I am especially grateful to Scotland's planners and planning community for giving so generously to their expertise and time. They have all embraced the call and the need for change and I'm acutely aware that delivering on this frameworks policy and aspirations will fall largely to them. I am determined to support them to do so and to help foster a new generation of planners to create a system for the future which faces up to and addresses the greatest challenges over time. We will chart this new direction together. NPF4 is to be Scotland's development plan, making sure that in our actions and decisions we stand up for our commitments to climate and nature recovery, for our towns and countryside, for greater community wealth and for our transition to a wellbeing economy. Increasingly, we recognise the global significance of the decisions that we make through planning and how we must act positively and responsibly for interests that extend well beyond our own borders. There is much international interest in the approach that we and Scotland are taking, with many keen to follow us. Likewise, I want us to continue learning from the best practice elsewhere in implementing NPF4. That framework sets out how choices we make in planning can and must guide Scotland's development on our journey to net zero by 2045. That has been our guide in light throughout its preparation and will continue to bestow on its delivery. It has been suggested that the fourth national planning framework represents the biggest change to our approach to planning in Scotland in 75 years. NPF4 marks a turning point for planning. It is not a general policy update. It is about change. It is about planning with courage and determination to make some of the difficult decisions that may lie ahead. That is the 75th anniversary of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act, which we gave birth to our modern planning system. That is the biggest change that we have seen to our planning system since then. It will be for the wellbeing of our people, our businesses, our places and our communities. That will help to make Scotland a fairer, greener and more prosperous country. I hope that members will vote to approve NPF4 this evening and make a resounding statement from Scotland's Parliament that we embrace the change and how we plan our places for the future.