 Rydyn ni'n sffiliau nifer o'r cynllun ysgol, o fewn i barwyr ym einheaig yw Grain ddeuwc o hyn am yr ysgol, dyna'n llwy surau o'r gyflawniol o'r Cymru o'r Llywodraeth Cymru, ond gan gyflawniol o'r cynllun ysgol yn llawrfodol ym unig o'r cynllun eysig, o fewn i'n llwy fwyfodol o'r cynllun i ddefnyddio ddwyng o'r cynllun ysgol. Ni'n sffiliau nifer o'r cynllun o'r cynllun bach ni ddik. Rhyw porth. frying waiting Lightning 2. Mae'r geto gweithredag I 3. Bapu yn i'n meddwl iwrddxodio sayspan ioliawn i y cwm feed fairfydd, eisteddomken mai a gw型 o gwaith iawn 2. Mae'r aspireitau i'r hanffordd 1984 wrthion answered 5. Fysiwn i deneriasuMusic für tinyleri,eb sydd rogedd jakr 59 mlynedd aethwn nith dwrd gradig will last one minute. Any member who wishes to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their button to speak as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list. I call group 1. Purpose of planning, I call amendment 113 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendment 114. Graham Simpson to move amendment 113 and speak to the other amendment in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it's a pleasure to be able to be the first speaker in what is going to be a bit of a marathon for MSPs. I will attempt to keep all my comments in all the groups that I'm speaking on as brief as possible. In this one, we ended up at stage 2 with two purposes for planning, Presiding Officer, and clearly there's not a lot of sense in that. One was from me and one was from the Government, and as you might expect, mine was rather shorter than the Government's and was much to be preferred. In the spirit of compromise—you know me well, I'm well up for compromise, Presiding Officer—it's been a hallmark of this bill. I agreed to consider tabling something between the two. I've come up with something that is nearer to my original version than the Government's. I'll commend it to Parliament because it's not Government speak. Amendment 113 removes my original one. It removes section A1. Amendment 114 replaces the second purpose, and that is the new one. If Parliament goes along with it, we'll have a purpose for planning that I think is fit for purpose. We support a purpose of planning for the whole of the planning system, and section A1 in the bill, as amended, provides for that. We oppose its removal, and we'll be voting against amendment 113. Section A2 in the bill provides a purpose for planning in relation only to the national planning framework and development plans. It's our view that we need to retain an overall purpose, hence our support for retaining section A1. However, if we were to have the narrower purpose to reflect our international commitments, especially in the context of a climate emergency in the First Minister's commitments on human rights leadership, and they are being stripped out, so we'll be voting against amendment 114. The purpose of planning is much more than the development and use of land. It is about the development and use of land in the public interest. A progressive and transparent planning system has the potential to transform life. Spatial planning can affect the environment, our physical and mental health, and it can bring about equality. It is welcome that that is being captured by the sustainable development and the national outcomes that appear on the face of the bill. We will therefore support those amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I certainly welcome Mr Simpson's comments that he is going to keep it brief during the course of all of this. I, too, will follow suit. I welcome Mr Simpson's amendments to the topic. Clearly, if we are going to have a purpose for planning, we must have a single purpose. I agree that it should apply at the strategic level to development planning, which then sets a context for individual decisions. By making reference to the national outcomes, the version incorporates the achievement of human rights and the UN's sustainable development goals and avoids any risk of confusion or possible discrepancies between those requirements. I think that that is a purpose that will support the planning system in achieving better outcomes for our communities, and I hope that Parliament will support it. Thank you, Mr Simpson. Do you wish to add anything by way of winding up? And to press 113? The question is that amendment 113 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are going to move to division. This is the first division of the afternoon, so it will be a five-minute suspension before we vote. A five-minute suspension. Thank you, colleagues. We will resume, and the question is that amendment 113 be agreed. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 113. This is a 32nd vote, by the way. The result of the vote on amendment 113 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 108, no, 9. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 114 in the name of Graham Simpson. Graham Simpson, to move. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. This will be a 32nd division on amendment 114. The result of the vote on amendment 114 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 110, no, 9. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We move on to group 2, national planning framework, preparation and content. I call amendment 19 in the name of the minister. Group 2 with the amendments as shown in the groupings and the minister to speak to amendment 19 and all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The national planning framework is a long-term spatial plan for Scotland. It will also set out national policies for the development and use of land, and it plays a critical role in our planning system. The amendments in this group focus on the content of the national planning framework. Many stage 2 amendments highlighted issues that members wanted to see addressed. Those matters are usually for policy rather than primary legislation. However, I listened carefully to the debate on that and I understand why members want to highlight issues that are important to them in the bill. My amendments do not seek to remove those references. It is, however, important to ensure that duplication and terminology are tidied up and procedures are clarified. I know that this part of the bill looks very complex, as points are deleted from one place in the 1997 act and put back in another. I hope that members have had a chance to look at the version of the 1997 act that officials have produced, which shows how it would look if those amendments were agreed. At the top level in section 3A of the 1997 act, we have brought together some of the key priorities for the framework and listed them as outcomes. Ministers will have to include a statement in the framework about how development will contribute to those outcomes and I will briefly set out the approach to each of those. First of all, I agree that the framework should have regard to meeting housing needs and, in particular, the housing needs of older people and disabled people. That reflects the principle that drove multiple amendments from different members in this topic at stage 2. There is also a requirement for the framework to contain targets for the use of land for all types of housing that was inserted at stage 2, and those amendments do not change that. Secondly, improving the health and wellbeing of people is a clear priority. That outcome reflects Monica Lennon's amendments at stage 2. At stage 2, there was also support for increasing the population of rural areas of Scotland, including an outcome that reflects prior amendments from Rhoda Grant and Alasdair Allan. Another outcome is to secure positive effects for biodiversity. That recognises the point that was made by Graham Simpson's amendment at stage 2. Biodiversity is defined by amendment 28. Finally, I have made one important addition to this list of key outcomes. I am sure that members will agree that the national planning framework must do all that it can to help us to achieve our ambitious targets for climate change. That amendment therefore adds that to the list. At the end of section 3A, amendment 27 clarifies that the Scottish ministers can set out wider policies or proposals relating to the development and use of land outwith the national planning framework. That will ensure that the Scottish Government can continue to produce, for example, circulars relating to specific policy areas. Amendment 186 would mean that the life cycle emissions from national development must be assessed during the preparation of the national planning framework. I see merit in that proposal from Ms Beamish and I therefore support amendment 186. Planning brings together policies and applies them to places in a joined-up way. Links with wider policies and strategies are essential. Amendment 174 retains the list of strategies and plans that Scottish ministers must have regard to in preparing the national planning framework, but moves it to a new section 3CZA in the 1997 act. I am happy to support Mark Ruskell's and Rhoda Grant's amendments that would add to that list in any national strategy for the improvement of air quality, the land rights and responsibility statement and any national strategy for the ownership and use of land. The framework should naturally take account of all the things that affect the development and use of land. Alongside the list of strategies and policies, we have included other policy objectives of resettling previously populated rural areas, preserving disused railway lines for future public transport links and preserving peatland. I support amendment 187 from Rhoda Grant, which requires the framework to include maps or other descriptors of rural areas where there has been a substantial decline in population. I thank Ms Grant for working with the Government on that. I cannot, however, support amendment 7, which takes those requirements further, with detailed timeframes for the maps and descriptive matter. Before we go too far down the track of including such detail in legislation, there needs to be fuller debate in that to ensure that we can best support our rural communities. Unfortunately, Ms Grant's amendment runs ahead of that, and I cannot, therefore, support it. I am not convinced by Mr Riley's amendments 174A and 174E. I find it hard to envisage the Scottish ministers wanting to adopt a national planning framework that is not compatible with their wider policy areas. Therefore, I cannot see much practical benefit from that, and as I do not want to add unnecessary procedures, I do not support those amendments. New section 3ZAC also brings together requirements for consultation in preparing the framework, including the requirement for a participation statement. Amongst those who must be consulted is the UK climate change committee. Amendment 36 removes a fuller set of requirements that was introduced by Monica Lennon at stage 2, but to be absolutely clear, Presiding Officer, this is not a watering down of climate change requirements. I propose including that as a high-level outcome for the framework. As agreed with the climate change committee, amendment 174 provides a much more practical, flexible and effective approach, which avoids extra costs and delays. There is a requirement to involve the public at large in the consultation, and people or bodies who have a role in the delivery of the outcomes listed in amendment 173. That overtakes more detailed requirements to consult particular officers or groups of people. My amendments do not propose to change any of the matters on which Scottish ministers made direct planning authorities to provide information to assist preparation of the national planning framework under section 3AA of the 1997 act. All the changes made at stage 2 to that list remain as they are, and I move amendment 19. Claudia Beamish Thank you very much, minister. I call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 186, and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This amendment relates the content of the national planning framework and requires an assessment of each national development proposal's life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on achieving our national emissions reduction targets. I have a later amendment 219, which defines life cycle emissions as the developments' construction, operation and decommissioning. It is vital that we consider the impact of developments in this holistic way, as lighter construction phases, if ultimately heavily emitting projects, can be misleading. I had a similar amendment at stage 2 of this bill, and amendment drafting comes directly from the minister's comments at stage 2, which I have taken on board. When he said, I agree that it would be useful to undertake such an assessment of all proposed national developments to be included in the national planning framework for, and I would be happy with an amendment in these terms so that the most significant long-term infrastructure projects could be assessed in that way. This Parliament is set to agree—has in fact this morning agreed—at stage 2, all being well at stage 3, the climate change bill, a net zero target emission by 2045, and that means that we all need to invest in developments that will serve us well into the future. In this climate emergency, the duty on the Scottish ministers to properly future-proof national development is absolutely vital. I am delighted that the minister is accepting the amendment. Thank you very much. I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 187 and the other amendments in this group. Presiding Officer, I want to speak to amendment 1877174C and 174D. Most of my amendments cover declining population in rural areas. In this first group, I will take a little time to point out why that is a concern and why we should be remedying it. I was brought up in Wester Ross and, therefore, I am painfully aware that population decline poses a real threat to the very existence of many rural communities, not just those in the Highlands and Islands, but throughout Scotland. Of course, there is much to celebrate in what a rural area contributes to Scotland. Spectacular landscapes and natural heritage that draw visitors from home and abroad rural areas are also where most of our food is grown and where most of our carbon is sequestrated. Rural Scotland is important to the whole of Scotland. Recent research by the James Hutton Institute paints a grim picture of the future of Scotland's sparsely populated area. The report's key finding is that those areas have a demographic legacy that, in the absence of intervention, will result in decades of population decline and shrinkage of its working age population on a scale that implies serious challenges for the economic development and consequences for its landscape and ecology, which are poorly understood. It also states that its risks are losing over one quarter of its population by 2046, threatening its very existence. In putting forward amendments during stage 2, I argued that it is time to give the people dimension to the countryside greater status in developing future planning policy. It is people who are the lifeblood of those places, and therefore it was encouraging that my stage 2 amendments on rural repopulation attracted cross-party support. The challenge is to ensure that Scotland's planning system facilitates rural repopulation that balances sustainable economic development with the protection of our landscapes and natural heritage. The amendments that I am putting forward today are intended to help the planning system to do precisely that. Amendment 187 will enhance the national planning framework's content through allowing for the production of maps, diagrams and illustrations and descriptive matter of rural areas where there has been a substantial decline in population. That will provide useful indications of the places where rural repopulation may be both desirable and feasible. Amendment 7 serves the same purpose in relation to assisting in the preparation of the national planning framework content. However, it provides more focus on a timeframe to which such material should relate and specifically indicates that the produced material may relate to areas that are no longer inhabited. However, given the minister's constructive comments and support for the other amendments, I am minded not to move amendment 7 when that time comes. Amendment 174C and 174D reinforce the fact that this is a land-use planning system. They will ensure that Scottish ministers have regard for any land rights and responsibility statements and any national strategy or action plan for the ownership or use of land prepared by them in revising the national planning framework. They complement other strategies and policies listed on the face of the bill and emphasise the cross-cutting significance of land reform to the development of the planning system. Thank you very much. I call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 174B in the other amendments in this group. Barring some fairly glaring and notable emissions that we will come on to, the Government has done an effective job of building a diverse and important set of principles raised at stage 2 into the bill. It is welcome to see that the national planning framework will include statements on meeting the housing needs of people in Scotland, including older and disabled people, on improving health and wellbeing. Labour, and Monica Lennon, have argued throughout the passage of the bill that public health and closing health and equality must be at the heart of our planning system, meeting emission reduction targets and increasing the population of rural areas in Scotland, an important issue that is raised by Rhoda Grant. However, we see equally and non-discriminatory as a notable omission from the issues that are addressed by the national planning framework, the omission that was reflected in the Government's failure to adequately engage with Monica Lennon and Andy Wightman's amendments on gender at stage 2. The design of Scotland's urban space and infrastructure is based on traditionally male need and continues to contribute to women's exclusion from public life. The Government has taken a strong line on gender equality, including in their exceptions of structural inequality, so it is deeply disappointing that they have not made equality a key outcome of the national planning framework, the Government's key expression of planning policy. I look forward to seeing whether the Government will support Monica Lennon's upcoming amendments on equality and non-discrimination. We will support all of the amendments in this group, apart from 29, which seeks to delete the requirement on the Government to consult with chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS. If the Government is serious about spatial planning and working to help people's physical and mental health, then it must have an idea of the key challenges and how they differ across Scotland. That requires expert advice. The combination of planning and public health is great examples of what can be achieved when we stop working in a siloed way and bring different expertise together. However, sometimes time and resources can get in the way of that, and statutory footing is required to make partnership working happen. That is an opportunity for the Government to embrace rather than run away. I would like to put on record my thanks to Mr Stewart for constructive discussion and engagement between stage 2 and stage 3 about the issues of air quality and pollution. I was able to raise a number of issues, constituency issues, as part of those discussions, particularly the community of schoon, who faced a number of very logical planning decisions that will make their air quality worse. Pollution remains a big killer in Scotland. It was one of the conclusions of the Environment, Climate Change and Climate Change Committee's inquiry into air quality that we need to embed consideration of air quality more into the planning system. The amendment ensures that the refresh of clean air for Scotland and the national strategy on quality will have increased weighting in the national planning framework. That is a positive step forward, so I welcome where we have got to with the bill. Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Andy Wightman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome amendment 173, in the name of the minister, which inserts a new subsection into section 1 of the bill in relation to the national planning framework. That amendment sets out the outcomes that the NPF is expected to contribute to, making specific reference to housing needs, in particular housing needs of older people and disabled people. It also outlines other key outcomes, including improving health and wellbeing, increasing the rural population, meeting climate change targets and securing positive effects for biodiversity. That amendment consolidates a number of amendments that I submitted at stage 2. I am pleased that it positions the housing needs of older people and disabled people as a priority. Committee colleagues will look closely at the bill at stage 2. We will know that this is something that I have pressed for. Given housing is a key role to play in allowing older people and disabled people to live independent, healthy and active lives. Investment in appropriate housing will save resources that are otherwise spent on health and social care, help to tackle loneliness and isolation and contribute to improved health and wellbeing. A number of housing challenges arise from Scotland's rapidly aging population, underlying the need to invest in housing for older people and disabled people. It is therefore a pressing requirement to ensure that the housing needs of older people and disabled people are explicitly recognised in the planning system. That amendment means that, under section 3A3BA of the bill, ministers will be required to include a statement in the NPF about how those outcomes are achieved, helping to guarantee that the Scottish Government has held to account on delivering key outcomes, including meeting the housing needs of older people and disabled people. Because of the insertion of amendment 173, amendment 21, my own amendment 167, laws at stage 2 for the NPF, to set out what Scottish ministers consider to be the priorities for housing suitable for older people and disabled people and for meeting those needs. That amendment is no longer necessary, given that older and disabled people's housing will be included as a high-level outcome of the NPF. Similarly, amendment 25 remove section 1, 2F of the amended bill, inserted by my amendment 168 at stage 2, which required the Government to set national targets for housing suitable for older people and disabled people and report on consultation. Amendment 173 supersedes the need for that amendment and its removal resolves issues around definitions and requirements, which would make national targets unhelpful. Overall, those amendments ensure housing for older people and disabled people as a policy principle for development plans nationally and locally, while avoiding duplication arising from multiple amendments, seeking a similar outcome and ensuring that terminology is used consistently throughout the bill. Therefore, I am happy to support amendment 173. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are pleased to see the amendments brought forward by the minister and agree with them all bar 1. They streamline and consolidate a range of policy changes agreed at stage 2. However, we will, like Alex Rowley, be opposing amendment 29. The fact that the chief medical officer and the chief executive of the NHS happen to be members of staff of the Scottish Government does not remove the value in them being consulted. We also welcome Alex Rowley's amendment 174A and 174E, which, in our view, improves alignment and accountability with those matters that are covered in section 3ZAC, introduced by amendment 174. Although we are sympathetic to the intention behind Rhoda Grant's amendments 174C and D, we will not be supporting them. In our view, the land rights and responsibility statement is not relevant to the planning system and neither is any national strategy for the ownership of land. The ownership and occupation of land, of course, is not a matter for the planning system, per se. As to the use of land, that is already covered by subsection 3.5 of section 3ZAC in amendment 174. We will, however, be supporting Rhoda Grant's other amendments. There is no doubt, after stage 2, that the bill was, in the words of the minister, a bit of a gull. It is certainly needed to be tidied up. Fortunately, the Government has taken on that work. I have to praise the minister for a good job on this particular group of amendments. If I can just touch on one or two areas, Kenny Gibson mentioned amendment 173, which touches on the meeting the housing needs of older and disabled people, and, of course, that was inserted at stage 2. A number of members of the committee felt that that was very important, so I am delighted to see that it stays in the bill as long as this is passed, of course. I also welcome Kevin Stewart's amendment 28, which sets out a clear definition for biodiversity. I am glad that he has recognised the importance of biodiversity from my amendment at stage 2. That is good. I also praise Mark Ruskell, who attempted to get something in on air quality at stage 2. It did not get passed, but he has been away. He has improved it, so we can certainly support that at this stage. I thank all the members who have engaged on improving the area of the bill. There have been many folks who have come through my door. At the end of it, we have amendments that are much better in terms of some of the original ones. If I can just touch on a topic that Mr Rowley and Mr Wightman mentioned about the requirements to consult the chief medical officer and why we have taken it out, it is quite simple. It is not appropriate for the Scottish ministers to consult with Scottish Government officials on a Scottish Government policy. That is also a very narrow provision, and in practice the participation statement covers everyone. I hope that that leads to some understanding on that issue. Thank you very much. We turn to the question. The question is whether the amendment 19 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 186 in the name of Claudia Beamish. Claudia Beamish, to move. That is moved. The question is whether amendment 186 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of the minister. Already debated. Minister, to move amendment 20. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is whether amendment 20 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 21 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move. Thank you. The question is whether amendment 21 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 173 in the name of the minister. Already debated. Minister, to move. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question on 173 will actually be put after the next section, as it will be amended by 173b in the next section. We turn to the next group, which is consideration of equality's issues. I call amendment 173b in the name of Monica Lennon, grouped with amendments 189, 190 and 183a. I remind members that, if amendment 33 in group 5 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 189 and 190 in this group, as they will be preempted. Monica Lennon, to move amendment 173b and speak to all amendment in this group. I refer to my entry in the register of members' interests as I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Amendment 173b intends to add improving equality and eliminating discrimination to the national planning framework's outcome. Amendment 189 and 190 seek to require the Government to produce guidance on equalities in planning. Amendment 183a seeks to promote or to make promoting equalities and supporting planning authorities to embed equalities in practice part of the role of the improvement co-ordinator. I move amendment 183b and will speak briefly to them. I begin by drawing members' attention to the briefing that has been circulated by Engender, which calls on MSPs to back amendment 183b to ensure that the planning system works for women. I believe that the planning bill does present a unique opportunity to make our communities across Scotland more equal. Spatial planning, at its best, understands and responds to the different needs people have in our public places and spaces. Currently, none of the Scottish Government's documents on planning strategy reference gender or women in spite of some very good national commitments to gender equality in the national performance framework, and the inclusive growth pillar of the Government's economic strategy. That is disappointing. Achieving those goals depends on proactive steps across policy areas by both national and local governments. Gender equality must be mainstreamed through planning policy, strategy and decision making processes. Inequalities are baked into our built environment and shaped our patterns of movement. For women, how we move in our society is affected by the inequalities that we face. For example, around two-thirds of unpaid care work is carried out by women. Unpaid caring can tie women to residential areas where there are services and amenities linked to their caring and household roles. Jobs, especially the ones that pay higher wages, tend to be further away from communities and make it difficult or worse than possible for many women to access those jobs. The concentration of jobs away from residential areas means that women are spending more time and money than they can afford on travel, and some just cannot simply afford to be part of the labour market. Planning cannot be just a paper or plan-based technical exercise. It has to be about getting the best outcomes for people. If we take violence against women, you might ask, what does that have to do with the planning process? Violence against women persists in Scotland, and we know that we have to root that out. The way that we plan our communities can make real practical improvements to the experiences that women face. How we design in safety and inclusive public spaces is really important. Lighting, the space between buildings—all those things matter—access for wheelchairs and pushchairs, because we have talked about caring and how that burden tends to still rest with women. All of that is a planning issue. As Alex Rowley said in the previous group, the Government has taken a strong line on gendered equality, but sadly structural inequality is still persisting. From listening to evidence at stage 2, I picked up that for some of the planning authorities, they do not really see that this is their role, and that gender inequality is not front and centre when they are looking at planning policy and decisions. I said that in the context of the diminishing resources that planning authorities find themselves working with. That is why I believe that we need the proposed guidance and the role for the improvement co-ordinator to be crucial, so that planning authorities have the tools and the support that are required to bring about real meaningful change for women, and to support diversity and inclusion in all of our communities. I believe that those amendments are proportionate, practical and will make a positive difference. To turn back to what Engender is saying, without those amendments, Engender says that the planning bill in Scotland will not deliver improvements to a process that has failed to adequately consider women's needs and make progress towards gender equality. Let us not miss this opportunity. I would move the amendments and ask colleagues to support amendments 173b, 189, 190 and 183a. I want to make a few brief comments. I commend Monica Lennon for persisting in this topic. We had extensive discussions at stage 2. There are many examples in countries such as Sweden and Austria that have highlighted the highly gendered nature of land use and planning. We have a lot of work to do on this topic. I hope that, if we pass those amendments today, this will be the beginning of a new chapter in planning. I just want to talk about Monica Lennon's amendment 183a, which relates to the co-ordinator. I would strongly urge her not to press that. There have been a lot of discussions with COSLA and we will come to the co-ordinator section later, but COSLA is in a happy place now, with that amendment. I think that it would open up a hornet's nest if 183a was to be approved. I am happy to support Monica Lennon's amendment 173b, inserting an additional outcome for the national planning framework, as improving equality and eliminating discrimination. However, I am not able to support her amendments 189 and 190. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published technical guidance on how to apply the public sector equality duty, including collection of evidence, instigating research or consultation, if appropriate, and consideration of mitigating actions. That is their responsibility, not the role of ministers. However, in preparing the national planning framework and statutory guidance on effective community engagement, I assure Ms Lennon that we will take a kind of and draw attention to the commission's guidance. I understand what the minister is saying about the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but we have a kind of side body out to the side. We have planning decisions being made weekend, month out in Scotland that are promoting the interests of men who predominantly drive cars, for example, and we need to have that at the heart of the planning system. Quite sure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission do not see themselves as a side body, and neither do I. If I can continue, I cannot support amendment 183A relating to the role of the planning improvement co-ordinator. As we will see later, we have not proposed to set out any detail of the co-ordinator's functions on the face of the bill. We will be working collaboratively with stakeholders to develop that role and to determine the detailed functions to be set out in regulations. We consider that the co-ordinator should be considering the range of functions in authority exercises and the role that should be developed in collaboration with stakeholders. While we would envisage that equality functions would be one that is included, specific subjects at this stage pre-empt that collaborative approach. I support amendments 173B, but we would ask Ms Lennon not to press her other amendments in this group. Pressing the amendments, if I can just briefly comment on the minister's remarks. One of the issues that engender raised during evidence particular stage 2 was that one of the weakest parts of the bill was the approach to gender and to equality. I know that I asked the minister several times at the committee what dialogue and engagement he had had. I do not really understand the resistance to embedding equality into every part of the planning system because Andy Wightman is correct that other countries across Europe and elsewhere do that really well, and we heard some of that evidence. I am not sure about this horn that is nested that Graham Simpson is concerned about. There does not need to be conflict over that if we really want to get planning right for everyone. I think that we can find a way. I am grateful to the minister for the support or the partial support that he has offered, but it would be really disappointing particularly if we reflect on what engender is saying to MSPs that this would be a really positive step. I think that all the good work that the Scottish Government is doing on gender equality will be diminished if the minister rejects those amendments today. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote members. This is the first group that is voting after a debate, so it is a one-minute division, and members must be casted votes now. There is amendment 173 be. The result of the vote on amendment 173 be, in the name of Monica Lennon, is yes, 91, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The minister to press a withdrawal, amendment 173, as amended. The question is that amendment 173, as amended, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendments 23, 24, 25 and 26, all in the name of the minister previously debated. Could you invite the minister to move those amendments on block? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object if I put the questions to these four on block? Oh, yes, we do. I'm sorry. In that case, we'll put the questions individually. In that case, the question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. This is a 30-second division on amendment 25. I'll wait until the next bit, and then we'll… And then we'll wait until the next bit, and then we'll… Okay. It's okay. The result of the vote on amendment 25 in the name of Kevin Stewart is, yes, 97, no, 25. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. And the next question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 187, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated. Rhoda Grant to move or not moved? That is moved. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 7. I think that Rhoda Grant said that she was not going to move this. That is not moved. We turn now to group 4, national scenic areas consultation and report. I call amendment 188, in the name of Rhoda Grant, grouped with amendments 11 and 206. Rhoda Grant, to move amendment 188 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. I wish to move amendment 188 and speak to amendment 11 and 206 in the group as well. A research report on community empowerment and landscape published last year by Community Lands Scotland and Inherit identified a participation gap experienced by communities in getting their voices heard in the process of applying landscape designations relating to historical and natural heritage. It is vital to ensure that communities' views are not airbrushed from those landscape designations processes. Those amendments seek to address the gap as it applies to national scenic areas, the only relevant designation within the scope of the planning system. Amendment 188 ensures that ministers must have due regard to any national scenic areas report published by them when preparing the national planning framework. Amendment 11 specifies who should be consulted in relation to any proposed new national scenic area designations and includes any person resident with or adjacent to the area of a proposed designation. A community body is defined by section 49 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, with an interest in the land of the proposed designation. Amendment 206 will ensure that ministers publish a report on the consultation undertaken with regard to the designation of any new natural scenic area as soon as practical after the year of designation. The important must include ways in which the views of any person consulted were taken into account and how ministers intend to improve their consultation process before issuing any future such directions. Much, Presiding Officer. We are not keen—we do not see any need for amendments 188 and 206 introducing consultation reporting requirements that are already in place for such designations, but we will be supporting amendment 11 that improves the consultation process. Presiding Officer, I agree that it is important that residents and communities should be consulted when an area is designated as a national scenic area. That would help to ensure that any decisions are undertaken with the full and meaningful involvement of local people. Therefore, I am happy to support amendment 11 from Rhoda Grant. Amendments 188 and 206 will make sure that consultation is reported on and taken into account in the national planning framework. I am grateful to Ms Grant for working with the Government to improve her stage 2 amendments on that, and I am happy to support them. Does Rhoda Grant wish to add any comments to wind up? No comment. I am grateful for the support. The question is that amendment 188 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. There will be a one-minute division. Members, we cast the votes now. Amendment 188—that is a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 188 in the name of Rhoda Grant is, yes, 116, no six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendments 27, 28 and 29, all in the name of the minister, and I invite the minister to move the amendments on block? I have moved on block. Thank you very much. Does any member object if I put the questions on 27, 28 and 29 on block? We will put them individually. The first question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The final question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote on amendment 29 and members may cast their votes now. That is a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 29 in the name of Kevin Stewart is, yes, 91, no 30. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We will turn now to group 5. Just for information, members would like to know that we are absolutely on target, according to our predicted times. This is a relatively long group, just in case members need to nip out at any stage. It is difficult at this stage to know how many— I would also stress that I intend to call relief breaks at various stages throughout the afternoon or early evening, just not quite yet, but maybe at the end of this stage. I would call amendment 30 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the grouping, and I would point out that if amendment 33 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 189 and 190, as they will be pre-empted. Minister, to move amendment 30 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. At stage 2, there was great interest in the content and procedures for preparing the national planning framework. In particular, Mr Simpson made significant changes to the procedures for preparing and approving the framework. My amendments do not seek to change those procedures significantly. For example, I accept that there will be benefit in giving this Parliament the power to approve the framework before the Scottish ministers can adopt it. However, there is a need to tidy up those provisions so that the process runs smoothly. The amendments in this group therefore aim to consolidate the changes to this section that were made at stage 2. I will go through significant amendments and not dwell on those that simply rearrange, reword and tidy up the provisions. Most of the amendments in this group are technical and consequential and do not make notable changes at this stage. At stage 2, it was clear that the committee wanted more attention to be given to housing for other people and disabled people. Some of my amendments to remove some of the detailed requirements that were added. Amendment 32, for example, removes detailed consultation requirements associated with this topic, as that would be addressed in the national planning framework participation statement. That is addressed instead by other amendments, some of which I have already covered in group 2 and others that I will speak to in group 7. Amendment 34 tidies up the timing of the duty to review the national planning framework. It sets out a 10-year review timescale and carries forward existing arrangements that allow Scottish ministers to either review the framework or to publish an explanation of why they have decided not to revise it. Amendment 49 removes extensive provisions on data protection that were inserted by Mr Simpson's stage 2 amendments. That is not needed, as appropriate requirements are already set by wider legislation. Amendment 51 requires the Scottish ministers to publish the national planning framework as soon as practical following adoption. Amendment 52 requires the key agencies to co-operate with the Scottish ministers in the preparation, review and amendment of the national planning framework. To summarise, those amendments will together ensure that provisions relating to the NPF are practical and easy to follow. I ask members to support all the amendments in this group. I move amendment 30. Thank you very much, minister. I hope that I didn't speak too soon earlier, because no one wishes to speak in this group. However, there are a number of votes that may take some time. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 31 in the name of the minister to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 32, minister, to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. I definitely did speak too soon. In that case, we'll move to a division, and this will be a one-minute division, so I'll have to call members back from the team. I apologise that I was trying to be helpful to the chamber, and that was clearly very unhelpful. You'll be relieved to hear that it was not a close vote. The result of the vote is that in amendment 32, the name of Kevin Stewart is Yes, 81, No, 24. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. Can I call amendment 33 in the name of the minister? Sorry, I would remind members that, if amendment 33 is agreed to, I can't call amendments 189 and 190, as they'll be preempted. Minister, to move. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. This will be a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 33 in the name of Kevin Stewart is Yes, 87, No, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. I'll call amendment 34 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I'll call amendment 174 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move. I'll call amendment 174A in the name of Alec Rowley. Already debated? Alec Rowley, to move. The question is that amendment 174A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. This is on amendment 174A. The result of the vote on amendment 174A in the name of Alec Rowley is Yes, 32, No, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. I'll call amendment 174B in the name of Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell, to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 174B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I'll call amendment 174C in the name of Rhoda Grant. Rhoda Grant, to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 174C be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, and this will be a 32nd division on amendment 174C. The result of the vote on amendment 174C in the name of Rhoda Grant is Yes, 115, No, 6. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. I'll call amendment 174D in the name of Rhoda Grant. Already debated. Rhoda Grant, to move. Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 174D be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we agreed? Yes. We are. No, we're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 174D in the name of Rhoda Grant is Yes, 115, No, 6. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. I'll call amendment 174E in the name of Alec Rowley. Already debated. Alec Rowley, to move. I'll move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 174E be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. Amendment 174E. The result of the vote on amendment 174E in the name of Alec Rowley is Yes, 32, No, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. So the question is that amendment 174, as amended, be agreed to. I'm not sure whether you want to press. Minister, just to press 174, given that it's been amended. I press. You do press. The question is that amendment 174, as amended, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I'll call amendment 36, in the name of the minister. Minister, to move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 36, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I'll call amendment 37 to 52, in the name of the minister. Minister, to move on block. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object, if I put the questions, 37 to 52 on block? No. The question is that amendments 37 to 52 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. We're going to turn now to group 6, open space strategy. I'll call amendment 115, in the name of the minister. Grouped with amendments 116 and 152. Minister, to move amendment 115 and speak to all the amendments in this group. Presiding Officer, the duty to prepare open space strategies under section 1A of the bill was introduced by Mr Wightman. Following my remarks at stage 2, he said that he would be happy to consider further amendments at stage 3 to simplify the statutory requirements and provide more flexibility. My amendments 115, 116 and 152 seek to do that. Amendment 115 seeks to remove from the primary legislation the detailed requirements of what an open space audit has to record. Amendment 116 provides instead that regulations can make provision about how planning authorities are to discharge their functions in relation to open space strategies, including how they conduct an audit and how planning authorities assess current and future requirements for open space. I believe that it is more appropriate to include this level of detail in secondary legislation. That will provide us the time to engage with stakeholders and to set out an informed, practical and proportional approach, for example, around how planning authorities can record the level of use and condition of open space and assess future open space requirements impartially and consistently. The bill's definitions of green infrastructure and green networks differ from those currently in Scottish planning policy. I have no at this stage sought to align the definitions, given that we will shortly embark on a wider policy review. That will offer lots of opportunities for engagement and for stakeholders to raise any comments on the definitions or to highlight new drivers that should be reflected. Amendment 116 allows ministers to amend the definitions through regulations, should that be necessary. Since those regulations will be able to amend primary legislation, they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 152 will achieve that while also meeting the DPLRC's requests to tidy up section 275 of the 1997 act after stage 2. I ask the Parliament to support this group of amendments, and I move amendment 115. Thank you, I call Andy Wightman. I thank the minister for taking forward further work on this since stage 2. Open space strategies have been an important part of the planning system. They are in place in the vast majority of planning authorities, currently under guidance only. The provision puts them in a statutory footing, and I hope that we will be welcome. Does the minister wish to add anything? Nothing more to add. Thank you. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 116 to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Turn to group 7. Housing needs of older and disabled people parliamentary report. Can I call amendment 53 in the name of the minister in a group of its own, and minister to move and to speak to the amendment? Presiding Officer, I will move amendment 53, but only to allow for the matters that relate to you to be debated. I do not intend to press it. The amendment sought to remove a requirement for ministers to consult and report every two years on the housing needs of older people and disabled people. I agree that those housing needs are very important, and we should monitor progress in meeting them. However, I did not consider the report to be necessary, given the requirements that address those that are consolidating amendments have built into provisions for the national planning framework and local development plans. I lodged my amendments well in advance of stage 3 to allow you for discussion with members. I have since listened to what people had to say, and I fully agree that we should be planning now to ensure that we meet the future needs of our population. There is no doubt that that will be a significant issue for the national planning framework and local development plans to tackle in the new system. The provisions include some very bureaucratic and complex procedural requirements, and subsection 3 is particularly wide in scope. However, I am happy for myself and for officials to try to work with us and to produce those reports. Therefore, I will not press amendment 53. I thank the minister for not going to move the amendment in his name. The amendment was brought forward by my colleague Alexander Stewart. I think that he very helpfully gives Parliament some scrutiny over where we are going, particularly around older people and those with disability. I know that Age Scotland, in particular, was very concerned, but if the amendment was not there, there would not be some future proofing by Parliament. I thank the minister for not only listening to us as MSPs but others with the Parliament, and I think that the amendment, as it is, will now hopefully be in action due course. We will actually strengthen what we are all seeking to do and that is future proof our needs and particularly for the most vulnerable in our society. I also thank the minister for the time that he has given to MSPs and groups as well. As a convener of the cross-party group and older people, this was a concern for older people and people with disabilities. I am very pleased that the minister has listened to that. I know that there will be a lot of work to be done, but I am sure that we will all roll our sleeves up and get on with that. However, I cannot thank him enough for listening to all of us and not pressing this amendment. Delighted that the minister is seen not to press and to support the proposals suggested by Scotland, the factors that underline the need to invest in our housing for older people and address, I believe, the investment will save resources that otherwise could be spent on health and social care and will help to tackle loneliness, isolation and contribute to the greater health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Addressing the issue will require strategic action at the national level through the national planning framework and also at the local level through the local development plans and local place plans. I very much support what that is saying and I am delighted that the minister has seen fit not to press. Does the minister wish to add anything? Just to confirm, the minister does not wish to press this amendment. Does any member wish to press? No. In that case, we turn now to group 8, a count of decline in population and a call amendment 9 in the name of Rhoda Grant in a group of its own. Rhoda Grant to move and speak to amendment 9. I wish to move amendment 9 and speak to it. It seeks to assist in the preparation of policies and proposals for the development and use of land by enabling ministers to prepare an account of areas where there has been substantial decline in populations. I am here, Ms Grant. I think that I should be able to hear her so that I can respond accordingly. Okay, thank you minister. Ms Grant, please make sure that she is pointed straight at you and we will try to turn the sound up. Is that any better? Okay. I will just repeat what I said. This amendment seeks to assist in the preparation of policies and proposals for the development and use of land by enabling ministers to prepare an account of areas where there has been substantial decline in populations since the year 1700. It also enables ministers to specify the meaning of substantial decline by way of regulations and to consult with persons with appropriate experience or knowledge in preparing their account. Of course, since the period since 1700 includes a time of the notorious Highland Clearance, a shameful stain on Scotland's past. It is still keenly felt in my constituency by politicians and parties across the chamber. Supporting this amendment allows for the lasting effects of those notorious events to be accounted for as we move forward towards a hopefully more progressive and sustainable future, both for the Highlands and for Scotland as a whole. I hope that that will lead to future generations seeing lights on in these empty glens again. I therefore look forward to support from other parties across the chamber on this amendment in particular. I call Andy Wightman. Presiding Officer, this is an important amendment and we know from forecasts and indeed our own history that certain parts of Scotland have historically been depopulated and some remain at substantial risk of losing further population. In our view, this is a matter that properly requires a focus in national planning on topics such as infrastructure and we will be supporting the amendment. The amendment reflects a broader debate that we have had during the course of the bill on previously populated rural areas. As I made clear at stage 2, I fully support that principle and a number of relevant requirements will now be included in the bill. However, I cannot support amendment 9 because it could be an extensive time-consuming and costly exercise to draw up such an account. It is disproportionate and would add little value to those areas that have been depopulated since 1700 may not necessarily be the areas in which people want to live now. The principle of supporting rural resettlement is already embedded in provisions for the national planning framework and local development plans, and I believe that that is the best way to approach that issue. I will continue to work with Ms Grant on others on those issues as we have done during the passage of the bill, but I urge her not to press amendment 9 because of cost. Annacolle Rory Grant, to wind up and to seek to press or withdraw amendment 9? I am obviously very disappointed that the minister does not see fit to support amendment 9 because the amendment says that it is for the purpose of explaining or illustrating their policies, that is the Scottish Government policies and proposals for the development and use of land. Those policies and proposals for the development and use of land bring forward those explanations. It is also for them to specify what the meaning of substantial decline is. Much of the amendment leaves the powers of what work will be carried out and the amount of work that requires to be carried out in the hands of Scottish ministers. However, what it does is to send a very strong signal to Scotland that, one, we care about the clearances that were carried out in the Highlands, but we also care about the modern clearances that were caused by economic decline and we want to make sure that those places are vibrant communities again. I urge the minister to reconsider support in this amendment. The question therefore is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 9. The result of the vote on amendment 9 in the name of Rhoda Grant is yes, 31, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Rather than taking a guess wrongly as to how long the next couple of groups will take, I am going to take a 10-minute formal suspension and will come back at 1647, in fact 1648. Thank you, colleagues. We will resume now on group 9, strategic development and regional spatial strategies. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings and the minister to move amendment 54. Those amendments set out a new approach to strategic planning in Scotland. Amendment 54 introduces a new duty for an authority or authorities to work together to prepare and adopt a regional spatial strategy. This should be a long-term spatial strategy that addresses the need outcomes and priorities for strategic development and the proposed locations of that development in the form of a map or diagram. Arrangements for publication and consultation on regional spatial strategies have been designed to be deliberately flexible to allow authorities to decide appropriate arrangements for themselves. The amendment also clarifies that both the national planning framework and local development plans are to have regard to regional spatial strategies. They would act as a strong but flexible bridge between national and local level planning. The provisions enable the Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority or authorities to prepare and adopt or to review a regional spatial strategy. Where such a direction is made, authorities must co-operate with one another. The amendment also allows ministers to issue guidance on the preparation, adoption, review and content of regional spatial strategies. That will be a priority for us as we take forward planning reform and consider the role of strategic planning in the forthcoming review of the national planning framework. Amendments 55, 56, 106 and 110 are consequential amendments removing provisions relating to strategic development plans. It is fair to say that it is taking some time to find the right solution on strategic planning. I confess that I have had to be direct in previous debates about the shortcomings of existing arrangements for strategic planning, but I have had to do that to ensure that people understand the importance of change in this area. I believe that those amendments strike a good balance by ensuring that there is a clear duty, but the detailed arrangements are flexible and can respond to local circumstances. They will deliver on our original aim to modernise strategic planning so that it can unlock the potential of planning to guide our long-term development in a way that can better respond to evolving relationships at a regional scale. A new approach to strategic planning is a critically important part of our reforms. I have worked hard to ensure that the concerns of the committee and of stakeholders have been addressed in those amendments. I am also grateful for the input that we have had from the profession on that. I ask members to support those amendments and I move amendment 54. In the committee's stage 1 report, we recommended against removing the current statutory framework of strategic development plans. It is fair to say that views on that were mixed, but we took the view that, in the absence of compelling evidence to get rid of them, they were best to stay. However, we were clear that we were open-minded about alternatives. We took the view as greens that any such replacement needs to be flexible, needs to enable agency and autonomy by planning authorities, should be universal, and it should have meaningful status in the planning system. However, the minister brought forward that stage 2 did not meet any of those tests, and so those were rejected. However, I am very pleased to see the proposed amendment on regional spatial strategies. Although not forming part of the development plan, we believe that those will be flexible enough to enable planning authorities right across Scotland to collaborate with each other in whatever manner they see fit, whether that be water catchment level plans, transportation or infrastructure. We welcome the amendment. I think that it will be very helpful in the planning system, and it will be supporting all the amendments in this group. I call Alex Rowley, to be followed by Graham Simpson. Alex Rowley, the removal of strategic development planning authorities with no adequate replacement in the first draft of the bill, was indicative of a Government who has an impulse to centralise and failure to recognise the creative and effective work being done at the local level. Ministers are not best placed to identify the key regional planning priorities in different areas. That responsibility should lie with those who know their area best and the strategic development planning authorities have done a job in that area. For example, the local authorities involved in Clyde plan have praised the contribution that regional planning has made towards the regeneration and economic growth in the Glasgow city region. Clyde plan demonstrates the brilliant work that can be done by well-resourced regional planning with the backing of all partners. Given the stark lack of recognition that they received from the Government at stage 1, I thank them for their excellent work that they have done. However, that work can only be recreated in a political environment on which regional planning and the role of local planning authorities in the process are valued. The Government's introduction of a strategic planning duty only made possible as a result of pressure from the Opposition parties is welcome. However, planning authorities must be properly resourced in order to be able to fulfil their duties. I will say this throughout this week during the committee that RTPI Scotland stated that, between 2009 and 2016, local authorities on average lost 23 per cent of planning staff, while over the same period planning services budgets were cut by an average of 32.5 per cent. Those figures illustrate the resource pressure that local authority planning services are experiencing. In terms of the four dedicated STP teams, staffing levels are now down 60 per cent. There are currently only eight full-time charter planners working across the four strategic planning areas. That is not good enough. We cannot expect regional planning to do the groundbreaking and creative work that it needs to or has the potential to in order to support our local economies when working under this kind of resource pressure. The Government needs to get real and realise that a world-class planning system must be properly resourced. When the bill was first introduced, section 2 proposed to remove the requirement to prepare strategic development plans. The Government said that it would save time and money. It said that it would become too prescriptive, overly complex, costly and lengthy to produce. However, the committee agreed that views were mixed on the proposal. We concluded that, to the extent that there is support, it is contingent on a commitment to continue with some form of regional spatial planning. Section 2 of the draft bill removed the requirement altogether for STPs to be prepared without providing an alternative. The committee had no strong evidence that getting rid of regional partnerships was necessary. In fact, as we have seen with city and growth deals, the way to deliver strong growth is through regional working. The committee said that things should be left as they are unless something better was being proposed. Andy Wightman introduced an amendment at stage 2, which basically kept strategic development plans. Throughout the passage of the bill, we have maintained our position that, if STPs are to be removed, there needs to be a viable replacement. We turned to the Government's amendments 54 and 55, which introduced the idea of regional spatial strategies. Amendment 54 states that a planning authority or two or more such authorities acting jointly are to prepare and adopt a regional spatial strategy. In other words, you must have one, but we are not going to be prescriptive about it. Some of our councils Highland is perhaps the best example covering enormous areas. You might think it odd if Highland was told to link up with another council to produce a regional strategy when it is effectively a region in itself. Under this proposal, it will not have to. What we have here keeps regional working but with flexibility, and that is something that we can support. We have argued and we know it to be true that regions can be the engines of growth. Delivering growth is an important role for the planning system. Those proposals, rather than the sweeping destruction of regional working that we could have faced, are, we believe, an important step towards getting Scotland's economy back on track, so we will be supporting all the amendments in this group. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am not going to rehearse all the previous arguments around strategic development plans, because we have done that on many occasions already. What I would say about regional spatial strategies is that they are more agile and better able to reflect and align with wider regional partnerships, for example, relating to the economy, city deals and transport. They also cover all areas of Scotland, unlike the previous strategic development plans, and that recognises that strategic issues do not just arise in our city regions. I urge members to support the amendments in this group. Thank you very much. The cualquierfer amendment 54应s. Are we agreed? Can I call amendment 55 in the name of the minister to move— I thank you. The percentage of the amendment is being agreed to. Can I call amendment 56 in the name of the minister to move? Thank you. The question is that amendment 56 is being agreed to, are we agreed? We are agreed. We'll turn now to group 10 local development plans. Amendment 57, grouped with the amendments, as shown in the groupings and the minister to move amendment 57 and speak to all amendments in the group. the most confusing sections of the bill as a result of the many stage 2 amendments. I've taken on board the many priorities that members wanted to see covered by local development plans. However, I also want to restore clarity to the form and content of local development plans and to reduce duplication. As with group 2, on the national planning framework many of those amendments are purely I will speak only to the more substantive ones. Again, I hope that members have seen the proposed amended version of the 1997 act to see how those amendments will fit together. Amendments 57 and 92 remove requirements for local development plans outwith the areas of strategic development plans to address cross-bindery issues. Those are unnecessary, given the amendments that I have already set out and that we have agreed in group nine. Several amendments bring order to the crucial matter of housing in local development plans. Amendment 59 will ensure that plans include targets for meeting the housing needs of all people living in the area. Amendment 60 removes detailed specifications on what the target should include, as that was too narrowly defined. However, amendment 67 incorporates the specific requirement for the targets to include the needs of students, older people and disabled people. Amendment 68 requires plans to address the availability of land in the district for housing, consolidating stage 2 amendments removed by amendment 76. I am happy to support amendment 68B from Jeremy Balfour to ensure that housing for older people and housing for disabled people are addressed as part of that. Amendment 83 further requires plans to set out a summary of the action taken by the authority to support and promote the construction and adaptation of housing for older people and disabled people. That includes analysis of the extent to which it meets its needs. Other amendments remove duplication on that. Recognising the importance of supporting the accommodation needs of gypsy travellers, amendments 84, 94 and 96 insert a requirement for authorities to include a summary of action taken on that and the extent to which those needs have been met. Amendment 64 removes the requirement for the plan to include a list of sites for self-build housing, but in group 12 we will discuss an alternative approach to self-build. A number of references were inserted at stage 2 to address repopulation of rural areas. Rhoda Grant's amendment 191 requires plans to include maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter to support that specific point. Section 154 of the 1997 act already makes requirements for the inclusion of maps and diagrams generally, so I say no need for this amendment. I therefore ask Ms Grant not to move it. Planning is an important role to play in supporting health. Several amendments support but rearrange the requirements on that for practical reasons. Plans will be required to plan for health infrastructure, manage the effects of development on health and take into account the health needs of people living in the plan area. I hope that Monica Lennon will agree that those amendments will meet her aims. Alex Rowley's amendments 192 and 193 seek to ensure that education is taken into account in local development plans. I agree that that is essential, but those amendments duplicate the requirement for education facilities to be considered alongside other infrastructure under section 155 of the 1997 act. I see no need for this, and I would ask Mr Rowley not to press his amendments. Amendments 83 and 61 adjust John Finnie's stage 2 amendments on disused railway infrastructure so that it will sit under section 162 of the 1997 act. Amendments 88, 89, 95 and 97 rearrange the requirements for engagement with community councils and disabled people, requiring the evidence report to set out how they have been involved. Amendments 82 and 91 remove duplicating requirements on participation of children and young people. I must stress that that is not a watering down of the intention. For example, I have spoken many times about the importance of involving children and young people in planning. Section 16za, removed by amendment 82, was worded in such a way that there was not a clear requirement on authorities to engage with children and young people. A clearer requirement is included in section 16a1a and 16a2a. In any case, participation statements will have to set out how all people will be involved, and statutory guidance on effective community engagement will promote a more inclusive approach. We have put a lot of work into rationalising the provisions for local development plans. None of the policy principles has been lost. It is important that planning authorities and others have a clear and logical set of requirements that they can apply in practice. I would ask members to support all of my amendments in this group, and Jeremy Balfour's amendment 68b, and I move amendment 57. I call Rora Grant to speak to amendment 191 and the other amendments in this group. Amendment 191 is designed to assist planning authorities in preparation in preparing the content of their local development plans by enabling them to include maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matters relating to the rural areas in the district in relation to which there has been a substantial decline in population. Its purpose is to assist in preparing local development plans by providing useful indications of where rural repopulation may be both desirable and feasible. Given the minister's reassurance that that is already provided for in legislation and that that material would be prepared, I therefore do not intend to move the amendment. I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 68b in the other amendments in this group. I will keep my remarks short. I am grateful for the minister to accept my amendment, to his amendment. I think that it goes back to the previous comments that I made earlier, that particularly older people and those with disabilities need to be looked at, and I am grateful for the minister to accept them. I hope that the whole chamber will accept both amendments tonight. I will call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 192 in the other amendments in the group. In moving 192, I would say that 192 adds the educational needs of the population, of the district and the likely effects of development and use of land on those education needs to matters to be considered by the local development plan. Amendment 193 adds the capacity of education services in that district to the matters that should be considered as part of the local development plan. Again, it is important to recognise the work done by the Government's team to capture some of the key themes that emerge during stage 2 and incorporate them into the bill. We will be supporting the majority of amendments in the group, but we would encourage you to vote against the following. Amendment 64 deletes the requirement for local authorities to make a statement on how the local development plan will impact on the health of the region. We believe that a requirement on planning authorities to take health into account as part of the local development plan is a step forward but not a substitute for the transparency, accountability and ability to share and learn of a statement on what will change. There is so much scope for what that could include—active travel, green space, leisure facilities and community spaces. Amendment 82 deletes plans for meaningful consultation with young people. Despite promises made in 2006, the problem of a lack of community engagement in the planning system has endured. The Government's own review concluded that front-line front-loading consultation has not worked and, during the committee sessions ahead of the bill, the City of Edinburgh Council, for example, argued that the limited system of front-loading that we have has not been enough to generate community trust and confidence in the planning system. We should be seeking to open and demystify the planning system and show young people that planning is something that is relevant to them. Of course, all of this becomes more difficult when communities have no rights of appeal, but that is an issue that we will come on to. However, engaging young people via their schools, youth councils and youth Parliament is a way to give a range of young people an insight into planning and a stake in their local communities that will endure into the future and may even bring a more diverse range of voices into the local place plans process. Indeed, the Children's Commissioner has stated, and I quote, that we are disappointed that amendment 8 to 2 seeks to remove the obligation on local authorities, meaningfully, to involve children when preparing their local development plans. They go on, and children and young people engage extensively with the bill environment throughout their lives and their communities. It is fundamental to take account of children and young people's views. Best interests and needs to ensure that the public body's decisions both advance their rights and prevent negative impact on them. They state that the Scottish Government has committed to the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law before the end of this Parliament, one of the core principles of the Convention of the Rights of the Child is the right of children to express their views in all matters affecting them. That is article 12. Putting the views of children at the core of the planning system when local development plans are prepared will ensure not only that their rights are realised, but that children are experienced and experts in how they live their lives and their experiences and environment. They can provide invaluable input into local development plans that no one else can. Amendments 192 and 193 adds the educational needs of the population and the capacity of education services in the district to the matters that should be considered as part of the local development plan. That introduces consistency with the national planning framework and establishes the strong links between development and the capacity of education services. When land is allocated for housing, there must be certainty that the education services will be prepared for any increase in the number of young people in that area and that the Government is made aware of any increased pressures on local schools as a result of planning applications being approved. A further understanding of the education needs of the population will surely support that. We acknowledge that access panels do not have a statutory basis and therefore cannot be included in the bill. Could the minister stay on record that he supports access panels being consulted wherever they exist? We are satisfied that the Government has reflected that housing needs should be reflected in the local development plan, but it is important to note that the bill will not solve the current crisis in the accessible housing that we are facing. The current Government is letting down disabled people. A recent report from the EHRC concluded that disabled people in Scotland are being robbed of their dignity and independence due to a chronic shortage of accessible housing. It found that many disabled people are unable to leave their homes or are forced to live in a single room due to a lack of suitable housing and long waiting lists for adaptations. Some rely on family members to carry them upstairs or between rooms and coping with such issues every day can cause serious deterioration in health and mental health. It stated that the effects of that cannot be underestimated. It is its impact on every aspect of a disabled person's life, their ability to participate in family life, to work to access education and social life. The SFHA recently reported that funding for adaptations in housing association homes has been frozen for the last seven years, and that, in 2018-19, the shortfall between money awarded and the money required was £7.925 million. On top of that provision in the bill, the Government must provide the leadership required to solve the crisis, including building 10 per cent of new homes to accessible home standards. Andy Wightman I can, we will be supporting all amendments in this group with the exception of the following. Amendment 58, the minister regards that as having been dealt with in amendments 73 and 75, but those amendments are focused on healthcare and health needs. The text being removed by amendment 58 is concerned with the health effects of development, which is a very different matter and we will, however, support the bill 73 and 75. Amendment 82 removes provisions inserted at stage 2 in the participation of young people. We consider that a valuable addition to the bill and will be voting against its removal. Alex Rowley has already quoted from the letter that we received from the Children and Young People's Commissioner, who has only made one observation on the comprehensive large bill. That is to not support amendment 82 for the reasons that Alex Rowley quoted. Amendment 80 removes the requirement to take into account the open spaces strategy when preparing a local development plan. We are not persuaded by arguments on this, given that the bill includes other considerations such as disused railway infrastructure, so we cannot see how the open spaces strategy is any less important and we will be voting against this amendment. Amendment 87 removes the provisions that were secured by Daniel Johnson at stage 2, whereby the evidence report is to assess the demand and availability of student housing. The detailed considerations that are involved in this are not covered by the wider provisions of 15.5 of the 1997 act and, therefore, we think that provision remains useful and we will be voting against its removal. Previously, the minister had said that he wanted to make sure that none of the policy principles were lost. At stage 2, the committee supported an amendment in my name on the local development plan and analysis of the extent to which the use of age and dementia for the design had helped to meet the housing needs of older people in section 2EC, an estimate of new housing for older people in each year, and the use of age and dementia-friendly design in its construction so that we could see what progress was being made by local authorities. Section 2F defines dementia-friendly designs taking into account the needs including mental health. I am sure that I do not need to persuade the Parliament of the importance of making sure that we are building homes that are dementia-friendly. In a joint letter to the minister, along with Sandra White, who is the convener of the older people's cross-party group, and in support of Age Scotland's concerns about removing this section in the bill, as they believe that it is an important safeguard to ensure that local authorities consider the use of dementia-friendly homes. The Government is removing that duty. In summing up, I certainly would like to hear from the minister how he thinks that that policy intention would be protected in the bill, since he seeks to remove it. I would certainly want some assurances, if at all possible, that we do not lose the essence of promoting new housing and constructing dementia-friendly design in our homes. Thank you very much. As I said at the very beginning of my speech, what the set of amendments do is look at the priorities that were put forward, remove duplication and tidy up what was previously in the bill. If I can turn to a few of the points that were made during the course of that debate. I am probably the one who has talked more about young people being involved in the planning process than probably anyone else. It is one of the reasons why, outwith the bill, we are looking at digital planning and how we can involve young folk in digital planning. We have a pilot scheme at this moment in time, looking at the place standard with Gallashield's academy, which clearly shows that young folk want things much, much different from the older folks in their communities. I am absolutely keen to ensure that young people are involved at every stage of the process. As I said, amendment 82 seeks to make things much clearer than section 16za, which seeks to remove. In terms of some of the other things that have been mentioned, particularly around older folks and disabled people, many members have been very good at speaking to me about what they see as the requirements. We have listened to members as we have moved forward. I see a number of members around the chamber nodding. I have spoken to Mr Simpson, Mr Stewart and Mr Balfour and Mr Gibson who have been vociferous on the issue. I have spoken to Sandra White and, as I said, my door is always open. If folks have not taken that opportunity, I would urge them to do so next time. Let us look at what we are doing at this moment in terms of housing, because we drifted a little bit off of planning. 99 per cent of the affordable housing that we delivered in 2017-18 was housing for varying need. In terms of the affordable housing supply programme, I have said to local authorities and housing associations again and again that we are more than willing to be flexible with the benchmark monies to deliver more of that type of housing right across Scotland, and we will continue to do so. I will very briefly tell Ms McNeill. Since the amendments that I promoted at stage 2 were passed into the bill, I was simply asking for the response as to why the policy would still be contained within the bill if we removed them, because you have not mentioned what I think is an important issue, which is ensuring that local authorities are building dementia-friendly homes. We will continue to look at the design of homes, not only in terms of the national planning framework or the review of Scottish planning policy, but also in terms of delivery of the affordable supply programme. Beyond that, we will also look at that when it comes to the review of building standards. I have taken cognisance of the views that there were before stage 2 and at stage 2 around the needs of older and disabled people, and we will continue to do so. I would ask members to look at what was actually put in at stage 2. Look at what is here now to refine what was there. This is not a watering down of any of the principles that were put in place at that point in time, and I would urge you to support them. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 58, in the name of the minister, to move. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. That will be a one-minute division on amendment 58. The result of the vote on amendment 58, in the name of the minister, is yes, 87, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 59 to 64, in the name of the minister, and I invite the minister to move those amendments on block. Move done block, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Would any member object if I put the question on amendments 59 to 64 on block? That is good. Oh, we would. In that case. Can I put the questions on amendments 59 to 63 on block? I can. The question is that amendment 59 to 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote on amendment 64. That will be a 32nd division on amendment 64. The result of the vote on amendment 64, in the name of the minister, is yes, 94, no, 25. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 191, in the name of Rhoda Grant, and I believe that Ms Grant did not wish to move amendment 191? Not moved. Not moved. I call amendments 65, 66 and 67, in the name of the minister, and I invite the minister to move on block. Move done block. Yes, move done block. Does any member object if I put the question 65, 66 and 67 on block? The question is that amendments 65 to 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. I call amendment 68, in the name of the minister, to move. Can I call amendment 68, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, to move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I take it that the minister still wishes to move to amendment 68. The question is that amendment 68, as amended, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments 69 to 73 and ask the minister to move on block? Move done block. Thank you. Does any member object if we vote on those four amendments on block? No. That is good. Can I put the question that the Parliament agrees amendments 69 to 73? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 192, in the name of Alex Rowley. Alex Rowley, to move. I move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 192, and this will be a 32nd division. Amendment 192. The result of the vote on amendment 192, in the name of Alex Rowley, is, yes, 61, no, 58. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 74, in the name of the minister. Minister to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 193, in the name of Alex Rowley? Alex Rowley, to move. I move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 193. This will be a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 193, in the name of Alex Rowley, is, yes, 61, no, 58. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We are going to turn now to group 11, the protection of cultural venues and music venues. Can I call amendment 175, in the name of Lewis MacDonald, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings? And can I invite Lewis MacDonald to move amendment 175, and to speak to all the amendments in this group? Thank you very much. Amendment 175 requires live music and other cultural venues to be considered in local development plans, and indeed all the amendments in this group revolve around one central issue—how to apply the principle of agent of change to protect live music venues from the unintended consequences of new development nearby. That is a real and pressing planning issue. Many live music venues have closed in recent years, often because planning permission has been granted without the developer being required to mitigate the effects of noise from an existing venue. The costs of mitigation then fall on the venue, which is often put out of business as a result. The agent of change principle protects venues by making the developer, in these circumstances, responsible for noise mitigation, not the existing venue. Many live music venues want agent of change to be given statutory force in this bill. Unfortunately, the Government does not. The Government would prefer that agent of change be a matter of planning policy alone and not of planning law. The committee made a number of changes to give effect to agent of change at stage 2, but the Government's amendments today would reverse almost all of those changes. The minister met me recently to lay out his concerns about the changes made at stage 2, and our amendments today are designed precisely to address those concerns. We have offered a way for the Government to retain agent of change without endorsing culturally significant zones that they do not support. They can do that by supporting amendments 1, 7, 7 and 1, 7, 8. By contrast, the Government's own amendment 1 to 9 would remove not just culturally significant zones but also the principle of agent of change itself. We have offered a form of words that puts beyond doubt that ultimate discretion lies with planning authorities even where developers have failed to make reasonable provision to mitigate noise in amendment 1, 7, 6 and in the wording of amendment 1, 8, 2, specifically to respond to concerns by the Government that agent of change might somehow remove discretion from planning authorities. Adam Duncan is here. I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention. As I understand that the member's argument is that, unless his amendments are accepted and Mr Stewart's amendments are accepted, agent of change will fall away from the bill. Given that Mr Stewart wishes to retain section 14f in the bill, which is added, as the member will recall at stage 2, after an amendment in my name to protect the agent of change principle in the bill, given that section 14f will remain in the bill, why does he think that agent of change will fall away from the bill when we want to keep that in it? Because Mr Tomkins will appreciate that all the section that he describes, while it does no harm, it simply restates the laws that it stands for. However, I will come to that in a moment. In relation to the concerns raised by the Government, we have also provided throughout amendments that planning authorities should be able to consult with any organisation that is representative of live music venues, rather than only with the music venue trust. We have done that through amendment 180. The minister's amendment 131, on the other hand, would remove any such obligation to consult, and there would be no body consulted in that matter. Because we support the changes that are made by the committee at stage 2, we will oppose all of the Government amendments that would seek to remove them. However, Mr Tomkins raises the question of the amendment that he made at the previous stage, which has inserted section 14f. We want, as he will know, to strengthen section 14f by the amendment 182, which we have brought forward, and the amendment that we think gives it effect. Section 14f, as it stands, simply restates the law. Currently, under the existing planning law, Mr Tomkins must be aware that a planning authority may not make noise mitigation by an existing business a condition for granting planning permission for a development by a different business. That is simply not possible. That was true before, it is true now, and section 14f, as it stands, will not change the meaning of the law at all. A number of venue operators have contacted MSPs this week to warn of the immediate threat to iconic venues in Scotland, such as King Tuts, Wawa Hut and SubClub, if the principle of agent of change is removed from the bill as the Government seeks to do in its own amendment. That threat is not addressed by the Tomkins clause on its own. Glasgow City Council, for example, could not impose costs directly on either of those Glasgow venues as a condition of granting planning permission to somebody else, which is all that 14f currently prohibits. The immediate threat that venue operators worry about is that a council might grant permission to a new developer without requiring the developer to cover the costs of noise mitigation, which might be undertaken by the venue itself. Section 14f simply does not address that risk as it currently stands. Amendment 182, on the other hand, requires the authority, in those circumstances, to take particular account of whether the developer has made sufficient provision to mitigate the effect of noise from an existing venue. That would mean no extra costs for King Tuts, because all extra costs would be borne by the developer as the agent of change. Only with that amendment will this section of the bill achieve the outcome that Mr Tomkins is seeking to achieve, and I hope that both he and the minister will support amendment 182 in the spirit in which it has moved. The committee agreed at stage 2 to allow councils to designate culturally significant zones and to provide extra protection and allergists with conservation status. We recognise that there are concerns about that proposal, so our amendments 177 and 178 are specifically designed to allow it to give Parliament the option not to proceed with culturally significant zones while retaining agent of change. The minister's amendment 129 would throw out both at the same time, which would remove all the effective protection added at stage 2. I therefore urge members to reject the Government amendments and to support all of our amendments in this group in order to strengthen the law in the way that I think all parties wish to achieve. I move amendment 175 in my name. I thank you very much, Mr Donald. Can I call the minister to speak to amendment 121 and the other amendments in the group? I agree that we need to protect and encourage the significant cultural and economic contribution to our society of our music industry. Certainly, our music venues should not find themselves at risk as a result of new development being proposed in their vicinity. I have already given my commitment that we will include a clear statement of how our planning system should embrace the agent of change principle through the new national planning framework in which we are about to embark. That will embed the principle into the statutory development plan. We will continue to engage with operators of our music venues as we work that up. However, I did not wait for MPF to come around. Last year, I asked the Government's chief planner to write to all planning authorities to ensure that the agent of change principle is being applied right now. My amendments 121, 127 and 129 seek to remove the provisions for culturally significant zones from the bill. I could see how they had their origins in the agent of change principle, but they would have been incredibly damaging to the venues, communities and vibrant town centres that they sit in—the very places that we want to protect and enhance. What Mr McDonnell did at stage 2 was to advocate for development-free zones, which would have led to culturally free zones. He went too far, and he still cannot admit it. He cannot admit it when everybody else in the chamber, during the course of the discussions about the bill, has compromised at points. Everyone has done that, but Mr McDonnell still does not say that he went too far. I hope that members will support my amendments 121, 127 and 129 to secure the removal of Mr McDonnell's dafft proposals. Adam Tomkin's amendment was passed at stage 2, Adam's section 14f into the bill, and I was happy to support its retention. I am also content with Lewis McDonnell's addition to that, so I will support amendment 182. I also recognise the desirability of supporting cultural venues, including music venues, within our towns and cities, and so I am content to support amendment 175. Mr McDonnell's amendment 180 is unnecessary. The other statutory consultees are set out in secondary legislation, and I am happy to explore consultation with music venue reps when revising the development management regulations following on from the bill. I ask members to support amendment 131 so that we can do that. With the expanded provision at section 14f, Lewis McDonnell's other amendments in this group are unnecessary, and I would ask him not to press them. Thank you very much. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Andy Wightman. To amendment 182, in the name of Lewis McDonnell, the agent of change is a very important principle that should be on the face of the bill to protect live music venues. The minister promised the industry that he would do that, and he has not done so in this bill. In the city that I represent, minister, perhaps you might want to take note of this, that the four iconic venues referred to by Visit Scotland have been vital to the economy of Glasgow. King Tuts in Glasgow opened in 1990, Classic Grand in 1860, the sub-club, the longest-running underground dance club in the world, and the Barrowlands in 1934. All of those venues are asking you to put this on the face of the bill, and all of those venues are saying that they do not think that they will beat—Presiding officer, can I continue? All of those venues in my constituency, region of Glasgow, are telling me—I will let you in in a minute, but I want you to listen to this point first, because they are telling me, and I have just been on the phone to the owner of King Tuts who confirms this, that a development next door that would be a requirement for King Tuts to provide the noise mitigation and not the new development. If you do not make it clear on the face of the bill, if you do not make it clear on the face of the bill, you risk not living up to the promise that you made. That has already been compromises. 14F, although helpful, I do not think that it puts beyond doubt the explicit need to put something on the face of the bill. If the agent of change is included in policy—I will let the minister in a minute—this is the key thing, if you are arguing that it should be in policy and by way of a statement, you must know as a legislator that that is in no way as concrete as having it on the face of the bill, and that is what the venues fear is that they will not be able to rely on a statement, they will not be able to rely on something that does not really have any meaning, and we all know that legislation is the toughest that I would be happy to give way to the minister. Presiding Officer, that is pitiful. I think that folk should read 14F. I have given a commitment right the way through. In fact, I gave a commitment before this bill came into being about the agent of change principle. What is happening here is that we have somebody who is sore about putting forward amendments that would have caused chaos and led to a lack of development. Read 14F and read about the agent of change principle. We are going to go even further when it comes to policy itself, but please do not try and say that the bill does not cover the agent of change principle. Can I point out that the member gave way for an intervention rather than a question? What the minister is asking the venues, and I stand here and I am representing many of the venues, I do not really think that you are listening to any of them, to be honest, because what they are asking for is if our intention is the same as each other's. If you believe what I believe, then surely if you wanted to nail it to make sure that it is not about compromising new development at all, and I think that the minister must know this, it is about ensuring that when new development comes along, as it did in the Barrowlands, that the Barrowlands is not compromised as a music venue that has been there since 1930, and every day it has complaints from new development, and it has to spend the money on noise mitigation. Does the minister understand that this is the problem? In conclusion, I would ask the minister to reconsider making sure that there is a strong reference in the bill to ensure that the venues can rely on it when it comes to planning. That is all that we are asking for. I really do not think that it is daft, and I do not think that it is too much to ask. I was about to sit down, but I will give way. I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for giving way. I am genuinely puzzled by what she and Mr MacDonald have said. Section 14f of the bill, which nobody—there is no amendment to remove this—is going to remain in the bill, provides in terms that a planning authority may not, as a condition for granting planning permission for a noise-sensitive development, impose on a noise source such as King Tuts or the sub-club additional costs relating to acoustic design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of noise. That is the agent of change principle, and it is in the bill. Pauline McNeill I do think that the amendment is helpful, but I would say to the member that we need built embraces. We need built embraces here. There is avoidance of doubt. As a member of this Parliament, I spent 17 years dealing with planning authorities. I know that, if it is not on the legislation, they can ignore it. We might have a defensive opinion. It does not mention live music venues in the language. It does not watch wrong with some plain-speaking English in a bill for ones that says that live music venues should be protected in law by the agent of change principle. Andy Wightman I do not want to intrude on disagreements here, but at stage 2, I supported both Adam Tomkins amendment and Lewis MacDonald's amendment on the condition that they would work together with the Government to rationalise the provisions for stage 3. That does not seem to have happened. I am disappointed in that. Perhaps it points to a wider process with this bill, where the Government has appeared to prefer to work with the Conservatives than to collaborate more widely. In the minister's defence, we remain sympathetic to culturally significant zones, but we were concerned at stage 2 and we remain concerned at stage 2 that they are potentially unwieldy. We will not be supporting them, but I am disappointed to see that the key attractions that are embodied in that idea have not been taken further forward. We will be supporting all amendments in this group, except for amendment 129 and 139, because we wish to retain the agent of change principle embodied in those sections of the bill. I, for one, am quite pleased to see for a change the Government of Scotland and the principal opposition to the Government of Scotland working together in the public interest. I think that that is a good thing rather than something to be criticised. Before I get into the substance of this, I need to correct something that I said inadvertently and in error at stage 2 when those issues were being debated by Mr MacDonald, the minister and me and others. I inadvertently attributed some comments to KSG acoustics that I should have attributed instead to the music venues trust. I wrote to them at the time to apologise for the mistake and I just like to apologise to Parliament for making that mistake at this point. As we have already heard, at stage 2, a series of amendments in Mr MacDonald's name and in my name were made to this bill to bring the agent of change principle into force in Scots planning law for the first time. For the avoidance of doubt, the agent of change principle is, I think, quite easy to state. The key is chronology. We want to avoid a situation where an existing music venue finds that, as a result of a developer moving into the area, fresh noise mitigation measures must be put in place at the venue's expense. That is the agent of change principle and that is exactly what section 14f of the bill, as amended at stage 2, seeks to do. I am very glad to hear the minister say that he will accept Mr MacDonald's amendment 182. So too will we. Amendment 182 will add to section 14f. It will strengthen it even further to put beyond doubt the protection of the agent of change principle in this legislation, which is not a restatement of the legal position as it currently appears, as Mr MacDonald said a few moments ago, but a change in the law. Section 14f does not reflect current legal practice or the current legal position. It changes the law and amendment 182 will reinforce and underscore that change to make it stronger, and we accept its amendment for that reason. I am happy to give way. I also welcome the fact that both he and Mr Stewart have indicated support for amendment 182. That does give some force to the change in the law that section 14f brings forward. I am sure that Mr Tomkins would agree that it would currently be unlawful for a planning authority to impose a condition on King Tuts in order to, as a condition of agreeing a planning application for another business, and in that sense, without the amendment, his section was ineffective. Adam Tomkins I think that Mr MacDonald and I are both seeking to achieve the same ends here. We are seeking to achieve the same ends by different means. The reason why we supported Mr MacDonald's other amendments at stage 2 but are unable to do that now is because there has been a critical fact that has occurred between stage 2 and stage 3, which is that we have a revised financial memorandum for this bill that puts the costs of Mr MacDonald's amendments with regard to culturally protected zones at up to £330 million. That is a cost that we do not think is in the public interest. That is now the difference between our position, which the Government shares, and the position that is still endorsed by the Labour Party. There is no difference between us in terms of the principle that we are seeking to have reflected appropriately in our planning law. There is a difference only of means. I welcome the fact that the minister has been open-minded about this matter in between stages 2 and 3. I welcome the fact that he is now prepared to work with section 14f to ensure that it works both in law and in the policy that the Scottish Government proposes to make in accordance with the national planning framework. We will support all of Kevin Stewart's amendments in this group. Of Lewis MacDonald's amendments, we will support amendment 182, as I said, and amendment 175. We think that section 14f would have worked well enough as it stands, but we are content that amendment 182 strengthens it, or at least does not weaken it. As I said, we cannot support Mr MacDonald's other amendments in this group. We strongly disagree with Labour's rather ill-conceived and scaremongering press release earlier this month about the issues that it produced. Keeping section 14f in the bill, with or without amendment 182, keeps the agent of change principle firmly on the face of the bill. That is as it should be in Scots planning law, and we can all agree on that point of principle. Professor Tomkins says that he is pleased that the Tories and the SNP have come together to work together in the public interest. I am not sure that it is in the public interest to deny equal rights as developers, but it is certainly not in the public interest to deny that communities are safe over development in their own communities, as the bill does. Moving on, I express my strong support for Lewis MacDonald's amendments in this group, and recognise that he has done the work by speaking to live venues across the country to ensure that their interests have been heard during the passage of the bill. I am happy to give way. Mr Riley will know that, not only has Mr MacDonald talked to folk from live music venues, I have talked to folk from live music venues, and that is one of the reasons why the note from the chief planner came out long before this. I know that Mr Tomkins has talked to folk from live music venues. The cabinet secretary for culture constantly talks to folk from live music venues. She has related her views to me, so do not try and say that the Labour Party is the only people who have talked to folk from live music venues, but beyond that, actually get a grasp that the agent of change principle is in 14f of this bill. I was simply saying that Lewis MacDonald has worked hard and has done so by speaking to live venues across the country, and he is now reflecting on what those venues have told him. The minister has pledged to implement the principle of agent for change through planning policy, but what does that actually mean? It means that, should the principle be violated, music venues only recourse would be through legal channels. That is not something that many venues would have the funding or capacity to do. Does the minister think that that is acceptable? Sandra White I have King Tuts in most of the live venues in Glasgow City Centre in my constituency. In fact, two weeks ago, I was at King Tuts with the open mics that they have. I am not singing, but my niece is singing a band. I have also been to what is live venues where Pauline McNeill's group is singing a band as well. I am obviously interested in the politics of that, but I am interested in the live music venues more so, to make sure that they stay open. I supported at the very beginning Lewis MacDonald's agent of change, and I still support that. I draw your attention to what Adam Tomkins has said as well. The agent of change has not changed through this bill. I think that you have to realise that. I do not know where we get this particular instance that the live music venues now will have to pay to soundproof. The agent of change covers that, and that is in that bill. I am grateful to the minister for listening not just to myself but many others as well. I think that we have all had meetings with Jeff Ellis, who owns and runs not so much, but runs King Tuts, and we have the sub-club and all the other places. I am not going to mention them all. We had lots and lots of meetings, and there was one particular development there. We decided to try and open a hotel next to King Tuts. I had loads of meetings with him there, and it ended up—it did not go ahead—and that is where it came to, you know, basically the nub of the situation. As has been said by the minister and others as well, those venues will not have to pay for that. It will be the new developments and the developers that will need to pay for soundproofing if they wish to build in a hotel or housing, etc. You mentioned the fact that it was the CSZs, and that is part of Lewis MacDonald's amendments, which I cannot support, but I do support the two other amendments, 175 and 182. I think that they are really, really good amendments, but even some of the music industry showed concern about the other, the CSZs amendments, about the cultural zones. They mentioned the fact that that could stop development in town centres and regeneration as well, so we have to listen to everybody, and that is some of the music industry too. I am supportive of the amendments 175 and 182, which Lewis MacDonald put forward and all the amendments that came forward from the minister as well, but I think that we really should be very careful on the amendments from Lewis MacDonald in regards to the CSZs, which are cultural zones. The music industry on the whole is not in favour of that also, and they have showed concerns. I think that this—yes, or to him—intervention. I am very grateful. Does Andrew White appreciate that the amendments in my name at this stage remove all references to culturally significant zones? What I am saying to Lewis MacDonald is that I am very happy to support the 175 and 182 amendments, but you have the other one that he mentioned and has mentioned also in regards to the fact that the agent of change is not there. I think that that is something that perhaps will disagree, which we have disagreed, but I believe that the agent of change principles are in the bill without the other amendments that Lewis MacDonald put forward. Before I call Lewis MacDonald to wind up in this group, I note to members that we have passed the agreed time limit for the debate in this group to finish. However, I exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate in the group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. I would just be mindful of time, everybody. I call on Lewis MacDonald to wind up and to pressure withdrawal as amendment 175. Thank you very much. The minister asks if I will compromise. I am only sorry that he does not appreciate the compromises that I have already offered. That is in that spirit that I have tabled amendments 177 and 178, perhaps the only amendments in my name that the minister did not address in his remarks. Neither the minister nor Mr Tomkins has offered any explanation of why they wish to remove all of section 14C of the bill as amended by supporting amendment 129 in the minister's name when they could equally support the amendments in my name 177 and 178, which would remove all references to culturally significant zones, but retain the agent of change at the heart of the bill. I invite Mr Tomkins and his colleagues and members of the Government to consider why they cannot support 177 and 178 in that spirit. I welcome broad support for amendment 182, which strengthens the bill and for amendment 175. I congratulate the music venue trust and music venues that have supported amendments in my name and lobbied so vigorously in their support. Venues from Orkney to Gallus Shields, from Aberdeen and Paisley, Falkirk and Inverness, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee have come together to pursue those changes, and I know that they will continue to do so. In support of that continuing campaign for full protection of the law, I will press amendment 175 in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Donald. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 75 to 79 in the name of the minister and invite the minister to move on block? Moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Does any member object if I put the questions 75 to 79 on block? We do, okay. In that case, I'll call amendment 75, sorry. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We'll move to a division and members may cast their votes now. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 77. Amendment 77, one minute. The result of the vote on amendment 77 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes. The result of the vote on amendment 77 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 92, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I invite the minister to move amendment 80? The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. This will be a 30-second division on amendment 80. The result of the vote on amendment number 80 in the name of the minister is yes, 85, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I invite the minister to move amendment 81 in his name? The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We'll move now to group 12, a list of persons seeking land for self-building housing. I'm going to call amendment 117 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 120 and 123, and Graham Simpson to move amendment 117 and speak to all the amendments in this group. I move amendment 117. Stage 2, I submitted an amendment which aimed to make it easier for people to build their own homes by making plots easily identified through a register of self-build plots. I wanted the register to be publicly visible so that people who wish to build their own homes could express an interest in the plots. It didn't get through, but I didn't give up hope. So I've submitted a couple of amendments here to facilitate self-build housing. Amendment 120 requires councils to establish lists of people seeking land for self-build, and clearly we would need to have regard to GDPR. Amendment 117 says that planning authorities would need to have regard to the list when preparing their local development plans. A similar scheme was put in place by the Greater London Authority, where public land was released for development across the authority and helped to increase housing supply across the area. The scheme, run by the GLA, was imaginatively called The Build Your Own London Home Register. The register could empower people to shape their own living spaces the way they want and contribute to vibrant and varied communities, facilitating this custom-build approach would empower individuals and groups and strengthen neighbourhood links and create local jobs. Amendment 123 relates to self-build housing within master plan consent areas. It provides that a master plan consent area scheme may, under section 54B1A, specify that it provides authorisation for self-build housing development. We can and should be doing exciting work on self-build in Scotland. We could, for example, replicate the exciting Gravenhill development in Oxfordshire, the UK's largest self-build development as seen on TV's grand designs. This was an old ministry of defence site taken over by the local council and marketed it at people who want to build or have built a home. There's a fantastic mix of houses and apartments, including affordable ones. A Scottish version, in the right place, would be a winner. With those amendments, it would be my hope that we can make it happen. Requires planning authorities in preparing local development plans to have regard to a list of persons provided by amendment 120 are interested in land for self-building. As Grimmson said, he brought the amendment forward or a version of it at stage 2. Indeed, Greens want to see more self-procurement of housing. We want to see it provide around half of all new housing, as most normal European countries do. We want to eliminate the speculative volume house building industry, but we don't think that the planning bill is the place for doing this because the procurement method is not strictly a planning matter. All land allocated for housing could potentially be used for self-procured housing, as is common in continental Europe, but the approach in those amendments is to put self-procurement in a ghetto rather than the mainstream. Mr Simpson seems to be chuckling if he wishes to intervene. I'm quite happy to take an intervention. Amendment 123 has some greater merit, but even here it is not clear how the procurement methods can be specified in planning. Nevertheless, as this amendment is focused on master plan consent areas, we will support it, given that this is a new form of consent and likely to have greater flexibility in its deployment. I'm happy to support those amendments. Mr Simpson has worked positively with the Government to develop those proposals and to replace the amendment that he brought forward at stage 2. The Government has an on-going programme of work to support and promote self and custom build in Scotland, including the £4 million self-build loan fund and seven pilot projects. I agree with Mr Simpson that the approach to housing delivery should be more actively supported by the planning system. In theory, any site that is suitable for housing is potentially suitable for self-build housing. Those amendments improve on the stage 2 amendment, because they focus more on linking people with available sites. Self-build housing could also be a good option in master plan consent areas, in which we want to see diverse, good-quality development that responds to local needs and aspirations. I encourage all members to support those amendments. The question is, Mr Simpson, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our division. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 117. The result of the vote on amendment 117 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 93, no, 27, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Having listened to people today, I'm not going to press 82, Presiding Officer. Can I invite the minister to move amendment 83? That is moved. The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I invite the minister to move amendment 84? Thank you. The question is, that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We're going to turn now to group 13, local place plans. Can I call amendment 85 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 104, 195 and 196? Minister, to move amendment 85 and to speak to the other amendments. At stage 2, amendments were agreed by the committee, which required the planning authority to set out the assistance available to communities for the preparation of local place plans. We considered that the scope of those amendments was too narrow, as provisions only required information to be provided on assistance available from the planning authority. We expect that there will also be assistance available from other sources, including policy or guidance prepared by the Scottish Government, tools such as the place standard and support from various community support organisations. Locally, there will also be sources of information, support or funding available, particularly to each local authority. It would be helpful for authorities to signpost that wider support. Amendments 85 and 104 therefore adjust the requirements for planning authorities to set out the assistance provided to communities for local place plans, allowing us to cover assistance from other sources. I hope that members will support that. Alex Rowley's amendment 195 and 196 introduced a review period for local place plans. I agree that there would be value in reviewing the operation and effectiveness of local place plans. As an important element of the wider reform package, we want to see communities utilising this tool to influence the future development of where they stay and I therefore support amendment 195. However, I do not support amendment 196. That also provides for a review of the operation and effectiveness of local place plans, however, that version goes on to potentially link the review outcome with the introduction of a community right of appeal. Members will be aware of my views and the introduction of a community right of appeal into the planning system. I believe that it would only introduce additional conflict at the end of the process. We will have a full debate on that later. Our proposal is to improve engagement with communities at earlier stages and go across the whole planning system from the national planning framework to pre-application consultation, not just local place plans. It is certainly not appropriate to tie a parliamentary decision on introducing appeals to just one element of our broad planning reform package when there will be a wide range of ways in which communities can influence the future of their places. I therefore ask Mr Rowley not to press amendment 196 and I move amendment 85. 195 introduces a duty to review the effectiveness of local place plans after seven years. 196 introduces a duty to review the effectiveness of local place plans after seven years with a requirement on the Parliament to consider amendment appeal rights if they have not effectively engaged communities in the planning system. We accept the Government's amendment in this group to accept why the support should be available for those developing local place plans. However, we remain deeply skeptical about the idea of local place plans and maintain that the Government has failed to provide any evidence that it will transform community engagement in the planning system. At the committee stage, we heard several concerns about how local place plans would work in practice, their status and the level of influence that they would have within the planning system. Those include the level of resources that are available to community groups to produce local place plans and the evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee. The Scottish Property Federation estimated costs could be between £25,000 to £30,000. Capacity in communities to produce them, particularly disadvantaged communities, would be difficult. The extent to which authorities will have regard to any local place plan that they receive. The extent to which local place plans might displace community time and resources from engagement in the local development plan preparation process. The extent to which local place plans might be constrained by the requirements to reflect the local development plan or the NPF and other special plans as agreed developments take place. For example, Ballantyre Community Council said that the local place plan initiative is set to fail and increase inequalities unless communities themselves are given the funds and access to the experts to produce their own plans. Moray council considered that and I quote, the bill should focus on further integration of early and continuing engagement rather than introducing another layer of plans and further complications to the system. Scottish environmental links say that the fact that they are not part of the local development plan means that they are likely to be given pretty limited weight, and we think that there is a risk that, as formulated, they could end up being quite a distraction from engagement in the local development plan. We are not keen on them as they are currently being progressed. We would much rather see a concentration on getting better engagement in local development plan processes. Not much has changed since stage 2 beyond local authorities now having to take into account local place plans. Does the minister realistically think that that will make a difference to some of the criticisms outlined? As it stands, the introduction of the local place plans risks communities spending significant time, effort and resources on something that may or may not be taken into account by the planning authorities. Without any meaningful outcome for communities, the significant resources would be better used on broad engagement of communities in their local development plans. If we do not have the confidence in this now, if it has not been shown in seven years' time not to have work, it is right that we review it, and it is right that we ask the question, do communities have the same say over developments in their communities as developers? If the answer to that is no, we need to give them a more say. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments over local place plans. We went over it extensively in committee and indeed at stage 2. We have just heard from Alex Rowley, who has gone over it in some depth. I just want to talk about a couple of the amendments 1.04 and 1.95. 1.04 from the minister adjusts the requirements for planning authorities to set out the assistance available to communities for local place plans. This was a key concern. It would allow this to cover any such assistance rather than just assistance from the planning authority. I think that there has been a bit of confusion over that. Some people have thought that the minister was trying to roll back potential funding. I do not see it that way. It is quite the opposite. It could widen it to beyond just councils. Alex Rowley's amendment 1.95 would ensure that the ministers review how local place plans are working within seven years. That is very sensible. We should keep an eye on how they are performing. 1.96 goes beyond local place plans and takes in community right to appeal. Perhaps a cheeky amendment from Mr Rowley, but I think that we should be sticking to the subject. We will support 1.95, but what not 1.96? We will support all amendments in this group. I commend Alex Rowley on amendments 1.95 and his cheeky 1.96. Unless I am mistaken, it seems to be missing a subsection 3. I do not know if that is a drafting error or if any substantive legal provisions are missing from the amendment, but no doubt that will be picked up in due course. Those amendments go some way to addressing the concerns that were raised at stage 1 and by witnesses as to the real value to be gained by local place plans. I think that views on local place plans were mixed in committee. I was not persuaded that they were going to add anything of substance, but I took the committee's view that they could and therefore went on to support them, but I still remain sceptical. Amendment 1.95, in particular, will enable a proper review to take place and provide parliaments to take a view on what to do in terms of 1.96, should it be resolved that such plans are not ensuing the needs of communities that are being addressed in the planning system. I invite the minister to wind up in this group. First of all, can I touch on a point that Mr Rowley made about local place plans only have to be taken into account in local development plans? I am sure that Mr Rowley recognises that the national planning framework also has to be taken into account when it comes to local development plans, and I am sure that he would not be thinking that local authorities would ignore the national planning framework. In my opinion, I have always wanted to see community planning and spatial planning intertwined, and I think that local place plans have the opportunity to do exactly that. I think that local place plans will empower communities where communities themselves are able to set a vision for their place. There is general support for the introduction of local place plans, including in the survey of children and young people undertaken by Young Scot as part of the consultation on planning reform. Much of the detail about how local place plans will work in practice will derive from the secondary legislation, backed up by supportive guidance. Of course, all that will be subject to consultation by Parliament in additional impact assessment, too. Guidance will be prepared, as the Government said. Tools such as the place standard are constantly developing. There will also be support from various community support organisations, such as PAS, and locally there will also be sources of information, support or funding available to each planning authority. Obviously, it is wise to look after implementation, how local place plans have worked, and I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. I think that I am probably much more optimistic about what can be achieved here than some others, but communities rise to the challenge. Some communities have already got their own local place plans. Let's see many more of them right across the country. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments 86 to 97 and invite the minister to move these amendments on block? Thank you. The first question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Mr Wightman. Sorry, Presiding Officer. We are not content to have them moved on block. No, I have moved them on block, but I am going to take the votes until we get these seven. I beg your pardon, yes. That is right. I am glad that you are on the ball, Mr Wightman. No, he is absolutely right. He said earlier that 87 would be an objection. We will just rerun that vote. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed, and we will move to a vote on amendment 87. That will be a one-minute division. On amendment 87, members may vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 87 in the name of Kevin Stewart is, yes, 110, no, 10. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I am now going to ask the chamber if you are content that we move amendments 88 to 97 on block. Does everybody agree? We are agreed. So the question is that amendment 88 to 97. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Now, before we turn to group 14, I am just going to suggest a short break this time of just five minutes. A five-minute suspension will come back at 1835. Short suspension. Okay, can I call the chamber back to order? And we'll move to group 14, which is local development plan examination. And can I call amendment 194 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendment as shown in the groupings, and I can invite Andy Wightman to move amendment 194 and to speak to the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Amendment 194 reinstates an opportunity for those who have made representations to a local development plan to be heard at any examination of the plan. When I see a rein state, this opportunity was available under section 15 of the 97 act, but was removed when the provisions in part 2 of the 97 act were wholly replaced by alternative provisions in the 2006 act. Therefore, I have tabled a modest amendment to give the appointed person the opportunity to hear from objectors, which I think was a valuable part of the examination process. We do not agree with amendments 118 and 119 in the name of Graham Simpson. I move amendment 194. Thank you very much, and I can invite Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 118 and the others in this group. Presiding Officer, I apologise, but I did not hear what Andy Wightman said at the end, whether he was supporting one of my amendments. I said at the end of my short contribution that we would not be supporting amendment 118 or 119. People get frustrated with the planning system when they see councils reject applications only for them to be overturned on the appeal. One of the arguments that developers use, and quite often it is successful, is that local development plans have not allocated sufficient housing. The outcome of any successful appeal can be a frustrated community, but equally a developer thinking they could have done without the delay. If councils got their housing allocations right and crucially agreed at the outset, we could avoid all this. Amendment 119 in my name is an attempt to improve on this. It will give an appointed person, probably a reporter, a new power if they are not satisfied with the amount of land allocated for housing. Andy, I agree with Graham Simpson for giving way, because this is a classic example of what has happened in Fife. When Derek Mackay was the planning minister, he increased the number of houses that should be available within the SES plan area that included Fife. When you meet with the heady planning, with the strategic directory planning in Fife, they tell you that there is more than enough adequate land available and that it is the Scottish Government that has got it wrong. However, that does not help when you have a plan application, for example, in Aberdeyr that has been refused through all the local planning processes. It is then overturned by the Government on the grounds that there is not enough housing land supply. When you have the heady planning, the strategic development manager, they are all saying that the figures are wrong. I am not sure that putting enough housing land supply in Fife would be satisfactory to the people who have had to suffer as a result of the disagreement in Fife. Graham Simpson. Alex Rowley has spoken for longer than I intended to speak to my amendment. I am not actually sure whether he is agreeing with it or not, because surely what we need to do is have local plans allocate the right amount of housing. That needs to be agreed at the outset. This amendment has the support of homes for Scotland, so I think that it is worth accepting. It could actually reduce the number of appeals, reduce the frustration in the system. Everybody knows where they stand at the start, and that is what we should be aiming for. I hope that it will lead to better practice and rigorous local development plans, but I hope that the power will not be used. Amendment 118 is a technical amendment that supports 119. We cannot support Andy Wightman's amendment 194. It was submitted so late that we had no chance to amend it before the deadline. We liked the principle behind the amendment. It would ensure that communities and complainants have a right to be heard. Unfortunately, as it is currently drafted, the hearings can involve an almost infinite number of people—thousands, potentially—so I would have liked to have discussed that with Mr Wightman in advance. It was not to be, and that is a shame, so we will not support it. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 98 and the others in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is important that local development plans are properly and independently scrutinised prior to their adoption. Wider provisions of the bill will ensure that that is done earlier in the process, with the scrutiny of an evidence report by an independent person who will ensure that housing requirements are assessed up front. After that, authorities are expected to allocate sites for development and to bring that forward in a proposed plan that is then independently examined at the end of the process. The amendments in this group relate to the duties and the powers of reporters who undertake that final examination. Mr Wightman's amendment 194 would reintroduce a right to be heard at the examination stage for all parties who have made an unresolved representation on the plan. Similar provisions were removed by the last planning act as it was argued at the time that members of the public may not feel comfortable participating in such proceedings with lawyers and planning consultants retained by developers. Many issues can be fully understood and considered through written submissions and the current arrangements, allowing for a more proportionate and efficient approach. I do not want to add further conflict, time and cost to the system. I am also concerned that that has come forward at a very late stage without wider consultation, and therefore I cannot support Mr Wightman's amendment. I move on to the other amendments in this group. At the moment when a local development plan that has obvious shortcomings comes forward for adoption, there can be pressure on the reporter or indeed on ministers to fix the problem. However, when a plan fails to allocate sufficient land for housing, I believe that the solution should come in the first instance from the local authority rather than an intervention by central government. Those amendments put responsibility for local development plans firmly in the hands of local authorities. Reporters can recommend modifications to plans to address problems that they have identified in the examination. My amendments give the reporter a further option where it is clear that shortcomings of plans cannot be addressed by relatively minor changes and adjustments. They mean that the reporter could recommend to authorities that they amend their plan immediately after it has been adopted. In some cases, it is in everyone's interest to have a plan in place, even where there are outstanding issues that need to be addressed. A requirement for changes to be made to the plan soon after it has been adopted could ensure that it does the job that it is supposed to do in a timely way. There is much debate on planning for housing. It has always been a very contentious issue. A plan-led approach to housing development can be undermined if plans fail to allocate sufficient land for housing. Graham Simpson's amendments are similar to my own, but they provide a further option that aims specifically to ensure that plans allocate sufficient land for housing. Where that is not the case, the amendments would allow the reporter to return the plan to the authority so that it can allocate further land to ensure that the housing needs of the area can be properly met. I agree that that could also be a useful option in some circumstances. Local development plans have a crucial role to play in the planning system, but we can only have a plan-led system if those plans tackle their areas' development needs properly. I have considered how the bill can best support that in a way that reflects our wider aims of planning reform. There may not have been much agreement evident in the earlier stages of the bill, but it is clear that there is cross-party support for further decentralisation of planning powers. I therefore ask all members to support both my amendments and Graham Simpson's. Thank you very much. I could invite Andy Wightman to wind up in this group. Mr Stewart and his comments talked about the members of the public being uncomfortable in the presence of lawyers and developers. I think that that was a very astute observation, in fact, and it highlights everything that is wrong. All that is wrong with the planning system whereby the interests of large private interests—who can afford lawyers—have disproportionate sway over members of the public. I will give way to the minister. Those were not my words. The words, formal inquiries can sometimes be lengthy and complex, or not the best place for people to feel comfortable in making their case, was the words of Johann Lamont, the deputy minister during the scrutiny of the 2006 act. I recognise those words from Johann Lamont back in 2006 that make no difference to my observations. I did not give enough explanation as to why we are not supporting amendment 119 in the name of Graham Simpson. I think that it is courteous to perhaps do so now for the record. Why there is not enough land allocated for housing can be down to many reasons. It is a crude measure, we think, simply the amount of land that is allocated. Many sites are not developable due to reasons outwith the planning system, for example, land ownership or infrastructure requirements. We need a planning system that is more plan-led and is not at the behest of the volume house building industry. The amendment of Graham Simpson undermines a move towards a much more plan-led system. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I press amendment 194, if I need to. 194 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are going to move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 194. This is a one-minute division. Amendment 194. The result of the vote on amendment 194 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 32, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 118 in the name of Graham Simpson? Graham Simpson to move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are moved to a division. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 118, a 32nd vote. The result of the vote on amendment 118 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 91, no, 28, no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 98 in the name of the minister? Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We are not agreed. We move to a division. On amendment 98, this will be a 30-second vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 98 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 94, no, 25. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 99 in the name of the minister? Thank you. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 99 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 99, no, 21. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. I am just conscious that we are just up against the time limit for this particular group, so if the Minister for Parliamentary Business is able to amend it to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 10 minutes. We are nearing the end, colleagues. The question is that, in the name of the minister, Graham Day, that our time limit be extended by up to 10 minutes are well agreed. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 119 in the name of Graham Simpson to move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. It is again a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 119 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 92, no, 27. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 120 in the name of Graham Simpson to move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 120. The result of the vote on amendment 120 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 113, no, 6. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendments 100, 101, 102, 103, 121 and 104, all in the name of the minister and invite the minister to move the amendments on block. Does any member object to those amendments being moved on block? You do, okay. In that case, can I put the question 100 to 103 on block? The question is that the Parliament supports amendments 100 to 103. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 121. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we will move to a vote on amendment 121. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 121 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 95, no, 25. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 195 in the name of Alec Rowley? Alec Rowley to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 196 in the name of Alec Rowley? Alec Rowley to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 196 in the name of Alec Rowley is yes, 28, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I am going to turn to group 15. This will be the last group of today. It is a short group, and at that point we will move to decision time. Can I call amendment 122? That is on locally significant buildings. Can I call amendment 122 in the name of Graham Simpson, in a group on its own? Graham Simpson to move and speak to amendment 122. I will move amendment 122. It is the only amendment in this group. I was the first to speak this afternoon. I am also going to be the last. I promise to keep things brief, and I will stick to that with this one. This relates to local place plans. It is an attempt to make them better. I brought an idea at stage 2 that communities could bring forward or could identify locally significant buildings, buildings that they felt were important to them. That did not go through, so I have slightly changed the idea. This merely says that a local body, a local community could identify land and buildings that they consider to be important to them. I think that this would enhance the local place plan idea. It gives people a real say in their communities in saying what is important to them. I will end it there, Presiding Officer, because I know that people want to leave. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I invite the minister to respond. I support amendment 122. I take it that Mr Simpson has nothing further to add. You are quite right. The question therefore is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 122. This is a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 122 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 99, no, 20. There was one abstention and the amendment is therefore agreed. One final amendment. Can I call amendment 123 in the name of Graham Simpson? Have you already debated Graham Simpson to move or not to move? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Sorry, that concludes the consideration of amendments for today. However, the next item of business is consideration of business motion 17814 in the name of Graham Day. Can I ask Graham Day on behalf of the bureau to move this motion, setting out a change to this week's business? Graham Day to move this motion. That is moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against this motion. The question therefore is that motion number 17814 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. The next item is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 17815 on a committee substitution. Again, can I ask Graham Day to move this motion on behalf of the bureau? Thank you very much, Mr Day. The question is that motion 17815 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move shortly to members' business, but we will just take a few moments for members, the minister and others to change seats. A few minutes.