 by Kevin Stewart on planning and inclusive growth. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Kevin Stewart. Minister, 10 minutes are thereabouts, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland's economy needs a world-class planning system. We need long-term planning to lay the foundations for inclusive growth and future infrastructure investment across Scotland. When planning is done well, we get high-quality developments, well-functioning communities and places we value. Planning in Scotland has had its successes, but there is room for improvement. It's crucial that planning is an active facilitator in the growth of our economy, particularly in light of challenges ahead of us. For example, this Government is acutely aware of the particular threats to rural Scotland arising from Brexit and the importance of planning is an enabler of development in our rural communities. Planning needs a rethink if we are to realise its full potential as a driver for sustainable growth. Our planning system must take a strong and confident lead in securing the development of great places that will stand the test of time and help us to adapt to long-term climate change. My first request to planning officials when I became minister was for a full report of the independent panel set up to review the operation of our planning system. That review was independent of government, not led by the development industry or the profession, but with a focus on the experience of those who use the planning system and whose places are shaped by planning decisions. The drivers for the planning review, delivery of housing, of infrastructure, the experience of our communities, the effectiveness of development planning and management, resources, skills and leadership were, I believe, the right areas to examine. They remain the key areas for improvement. The Government followed up the panel's work with extensive consultation and discussion with our wide range of stakeholders and heard many views from professionals, the development sector and businesses. I was particularly pleased that many individuals and community organisations took the time to share their ideas. Bringing people together has not guaranteed consensus. However, we have listened to all views and I am grateful to everyone who has engaged in the process to date. Planning is important to all of us and the system needs to work for all interests. Yesterday, the Scottish Government introduced the planning bill to this Parliament and I wanted to take this opportunity to update Parliament on how the bill will change how planning operates in Scotland and how our legislation is also supported by a wider programme to promote changes in approach and changes in attitude and planning. Our communities need investment in development. That is a good thing. It brings much-needed housing, infrastructure and services that we rely on, such as schools. It brings places for our services and places where we can enjoy our leisure time. Importantly, investment in planning and development brings much-needed jobs, too. The bill is about inclusive growth, about securing investment in all of our futures and at a time when Brexit brings nothing but uncertainties. It is even more vital that we support Scotland's economy. The planning bill sets out a strong legislative structure for a much more proactive and enabling planning system. It will bring us clearer development plans produced through collaboration without being stuck in process. Development plans need to provide clarity about where development should take place and how our places may change over time. It should help us to design and deliver places where people can lead healthier lives, move around easily and have access to their homes, services, facilities, education and the employment that they need. It should set out a vision for places that are low-carbon and resilient to the future impacts of climate change. We should be focused on delivery rather than a continuous cycle of plan-making, so we will simplify the development plan system. We propose to remove the current tier of strategic development plans and ensure that the national planning framework and local development plans provide effective co-ordination and delivery of the infrastructure that we need to support development, including housing. The next national planning framework will provide a clear plan for Scotland as a place, supporting the delivery of all of our policies on the environment, communities and the economy. We will play a central role in realising our climate change ambitions, setting the course for the planning system as a whole. We will empower people to play an active role in shaping the future of their places. The bill will ensure that people in our communities have a real influence over the future development of their places through meaningful early involvement. We will draw a clear statutory link between community planning and spatial planning so that local development plans capture the aspirations of the community for better services and the development that is needed to support them. We will give communities the opportunity to produce their own plans, which may ultimately form part of the local development plan. We will ensure that the planning system is properly resourced to lead. There is a wide agreement that the planning service has been under resourced, and that is having an impact on performance. We can change the legislation and revise planning fees, but there needs to be a clear and related upturn in performance standards. The latest set of official statistics on planning decisions was published this morning. Although there has been some moderate improvement in the pace of decision making in recent years, we need to be sure that planning processes and application handling are as swift as is reasonable and add real value. Our bill aims to do that. The bill will include scope for additional discretionary charging to fund a better service. For example, a higher fee could be paid for faster decision making. We will also consult on further increases to planning fees once the shape of the new planning system is clear, and that will be coupled with the bill's proposals for taking a stronger statutory approach to planning performance assessment and improvement. Even now that the planning bill is before this Parliament, we continue to listen to what people tell us. For example, I am attracted by the prospect of embedding the agent of change principle into our planning system so that we can protect the established and emerging talent in our music industry. Our live music venues should not become financially disadvantaged or have their viability threatened as a result of new development in their vicinity. I understand the pressure in some parts of the country for new controls over short-term letting of residential properties. That particular issue is currently being looked at by the Scottish expert advisory panel on the collaborative economy. The panel's report is expected shortly. We will continue to engage closely with our stakeholders in developing the best possible proposals. I will be happy to bring forward amendments to the bill if that is the right thing to do, but only if there is a robust evidence base for doing so. I am sure that members from across the chamber will share the Government's aspirations for a well-functioning and effective planning system and the stakeholders that we have engaged with. I also accept that people can have some differing views on how we should go about that. For example, I fully acknowledge that there is some disagreement around rights of appeal. We agree entirely with the views of the independent panel on that, that better inclusion and collaboration at the front end of the system will bring more positive results than pursuing further options for conflict and dispute resolution at the back end. Our bill does not include a third-party right of appeal. That would run entirely counter to the thrust of the reforms to support inclusive growth and would introduce significant and unwarranted risks to our economy. However, I am equally certain of the need to retain existing rights for applicants to appeal against decisions to refuse planning permission. As an illustration of why, since 2014, around five and a half thousand housing units have been approved on appeal, those following refusals by planning authorities. If we are serious about growth, about securing investment and delivering the homes, jobs and economic growth that Scotland needs, then we cannot afford to put unnecessary obstacles in the way. I look forward to the discussions and the debates to come over the coming months and to us reforming and modernising Scotland's planning system so that it delivers on the investment in good quality development that our communities deserve and our economy needs. Thank you very much, minister. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in the statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we must move on to next item of business. As usual, it would be helpful if members wished to ask a question to press their request-to-speak buttons now and also made their question succinct. I have 12 members wishing to ask questions. I call Graham Simpson, followed by Pauline McNeill. I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. The planning bill contains some positive steps that we would support, but I want to focus on some of the more draconian measures being proposed. For example, the proposed infrastructure levy could be retained by government, not councils. Why and on what grounds and why hasn't the Government decided what sort of levy it wants? The bill would also order councils already cash strapped to prepare annual performance reports. Will they be given extra money to do this? Quite separately, there's a power to send in a Scottish Government troubleshooter if a minister decides that a council's planning department isn't performing and there could be fines for non-cooperation. The Scottish Government would even be able to take over a planning department. That runs a coach and horses through any pretence of localism. Can the minister say under what circumstances he would use this power grab and on what grounds he has brought forward these proposals? How does he define underperformance? Because the bill certainly doesn't. What is the problem that he is trying to fix? Finally, councillors would have to pass an exam to take planning decisions. This affects all councillors whose right to take those decisions is surely determined by the voters who elected them in the first place. Again, the Scottish Government reserves the right to take over if a council doesn't play ball. What's the justice for this effrontery to democracy? Presiding Officer, in the bill there is the ability, as Mr Simpson points out, the provision for the introduction of an infrastructure levy through regulations. However, that levy itself would be spent locally and not nationally. Beyond that, as I have already pointed out to Mr Simpson previously in discussions that we have had, I do not feel that we are in a position to knowledgeably introduce that infrastructure levy. That is why we will continue to do work on that particular issue. I draw members' attention to the recent analysis that has been done that has been posted on the Scottish Government website. I have asked my officials to continue to work on that, and that will be the case. On performance reports and additional costs, as Mr Simpson asked, I would look to increasing planning fees if we see movement in performance. I have already done so since I took up post. I have made it quite clear that I want planning authorities to invest that money in their planning services. Many authorities are doing that, and we are seeing much better performance in that regard. A number of the things that have come up across my desk during the course of being in post is roundabout performance. There was provision in the 2006 act to look at performance much more closely in a live further ministerial intervention if that was required. That is a power that I would hope not to use, but the reality is that if a situation occurs where an authority is not performing well, we should have our options open. Mr Simpson's last point was around the training of councillors, and councillors have to sit and exam. Currently, councillors and licensing boards have to undergo statutory training and sit and exam at the end of it. A number of people believe that that situation has led to improvement in terms of decision making around about licensing. A lot of people are not entirely happy with the current situation around about, as they see it, a lack of training for elected members. The bill will allow for that training, and I do not see what problem there would be in that. I think that that is the most important thing of all, that decision makers understand the reasons why they are taking the decisions that they are. The planning bill aims to give people a greater say in the future of their places, and it aims to empower communities. However, there is no redress in the bill for communities who feel a deep sense of unfairness that planning favours one side over the other. What remedies will communities have if they feel that a decision is not appropriate or where the development plan has been breached? There is no statutory, tangible or specific right of any kind in the proposed bill to challenge decisions in local communities. Will the minister at least recognise that early engagement in the 2006 bill has not worked? Communities can produce a local place plan. How meaningful is that? Will there be any resources allocated to achieve that, particularly for poor communities? How will that be incorporated into the final development plan? The higher fees that are proposed for faster decisions will not create a hierarchy for richard applicants, which will have an advantage where fees have already risen in the planning system. I ask the minister how does that sit with a quasi-judicial system that should be open and transparent? Thank you, Presiding Officer. A number of questions there. As I said in my statement, one of the things that we want to see is much more communication and co-operation at the beginning of the process. Ms McNeill has heard me speak before about linking community planning with spatial planning. We have the ability to use local plans and join them up with local outcome improvement plans to create better places. Already, in some parts of the country, communities have been putting together their own local plans. That has happened recently in Lynlithgow. I have not seen the plan myself, but I understand that that is a very good example of a community coming together and coming up with a very positive local plan. Many communities like Lynlithgow will be able to do those kinds of things without much help. I encourage communities like that to do so and for local authorities to co-operate with those communities. Ms McNeill is right to point out that some other communities may have a little bit more difficulty in putting together those plans. That is where I would expect local authorities to give more help to those socially excluded communities that may face those difficulties. I do not think that that resource will be a huge amount to be honest with you, because community planning should be already taking place in those places and that intertwining should bring those services together. In terms of faster decision making, we will look closely at what is required in that regard. We know that in many parts of the country, the decision making process is very, very slow. I continue to keep a very close eye on statistics, including the statistics this morning, and it is not just all about timescale, it has to be said. It is also about quality. Beyond that, we have to reach a point where the system itself, where planners become enablers and deliverers, rather than people who are just going to say yes or no. If the reason is no, there has to be reasons for that, and maybe the opportunity should arise to say, look, if you were to change this, it may make your plan much more viable. Much more co-operation, much more communication. I agree that in terms of the 2006 act, the early engagement has not worked as well as folk hoped, but I think that we have got a huge opportunity with new technology to get folk much more involved in planning. That is why, alongside that, I continue to work with the digital task force that I have put in place to make sure that we can use that to engage people at an early stage. I have allowed leeway for the first two leading questions, but I have 10 people who want to ask questions, so I have short questions, please, and succinct answers if I may respectfully ask that of your minister. John Mason is followed by Dean Lockhart. On the one hand, we want economic development, we want more homes and other services, but on the other hand, we want the local community to have a real say. Does the minister believe that it is actually possible to get a balance between that that will really satisfy everybody? Presiding Officer, I do believe that our reforms aim to strengthen planning's contribution to inclusive economic growth, delivery of the development that we need and to empower communities. We need an effective planning system that helps to create quality places with the housing infrastructure and investment that current and future generations need. Giving people a greater say in how their areas will develop in the future is central to our reforms of the planning system. As I have already said to Ms McNeill, that link to the local outcomes improvement plans and to the new local place plans offer a huge amount of opportunity for communities and will help communities to meet their aspirations. Beyond that, the bill will help us to achieve our ambition of 50,000 affordable homes during the course of this Parliament. No matter where I go in Scotland, since I have taken up this post, I get the call that we need more housing here. We have to get this right for communities. I think that the bill will do that. I think that I am going to have to redefine succinct. Dean Lockhart, followed by Andy Wightman, please. Thank you. Can I ask the minister? In his statement, he acknowledged that the planning service has been under resourced and that has had an impact on performance. If this is the case, why has this Government not acted sooner to address this underperformance? What additional support and financial resources will this Government make available to address this underperformance going forward? As I pointed out in my earlier answer earlier on this year, I allowed for the rise in planning fees. That is more resource going into local authorities. I would expect local authorities to use that resource wisely and to invest in their planning services. Andy Wightman, followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. I welcome the bill. Can I remind the minister that the independent review did not include any questions on rights of appeal and that discussions on that topic were banned in stakeholder workshops? Does the minister accept that, if we have a more meaningful upfront engagement in the system, that it is illogical and counterproductive to deny the need to equalise appeal rights? Does he accept that retaining existing rights for applicants to appeal will inevitably, in some cases, overturn frustrate and erode trust in the very community engagement and local accountability that he seeks to promote in the bill? I said earlier on that the independent panel did not support a third-party right of appeal. We do not propose to remove applicants' right to appeal against planning application decisions. What we do want to see without a doubt is that early engagement right at the beginning, rather than conflict at the very end of the process. Many folks have given examples of third-party right of appeal in Ireland, for example. We have seen a situation in Ireland where things have changed dramatically. There are now special development zones being put in place where third-party right of appeal is not allowed to allow for the investment that is required, and beyond that there is much more judicial review in Ireland than there is here in Scotland. I think that the key in all of that is getting it right at the beginning, rather than conflict at the end. Alex Cole-Hamilton fell by Fulton MacGregor. I asked the minister whether the planning bill will do more to protect areas of green belt and natural heritage, like the Camero estate in my constituency, particularly when development on such areas would lead to intolerable pressure on local roads infrastructure and local health services. Minister Cole-Hamilton is being a bit naughty by talking about a particular place, and he knows that I will not respond about a particular place in my role as planning minister. It is up to each local authority to put together its local development plan, taking into account the needs of the community that it serves. It is not for me to say exactly what it should be doing in those regards. It is up to them to put those policies in place. However, the other thing about local development plans is the requirement to meet the housing need of a particular area. What I would say is that, in recent times, Edinburgh has failed to meet that need with its new local development plan, being some 7,500 houses short. We need to see improvement in that regard. That is another reason why we require the training of elected members so that they know exactly what they are doing when they are putting together local development plans. Of course, they should be taking cognisance of the communities that they serve. To ask the Scottish Government how it intends to strengthen the planning system's contribution to inclusive growth and growing the economy, and what the minister thinks that how local communities as a whole will be able to affect the plans when it comes to large-scale developments. The bill will ensure that planners move from regulating development to making things happen. We have a system at this moment in time where a local development plan is completed and planners immediately move on to the formulation of the next local development plan, which does not provide any security for communities. Beyond that, at the moment, there is no ally for development. We want to see that development go forward and that will give much more confidence than that development actually being completed. The bill will ensure that there is a much more consistent approach to performance. Of course, all of that has to be done with communities who will have a stronger say and influence on positive changes happening to their places. The local plans are extremely important. That interlinking between local plans and community planning is all-important, and that is what I want to see right across the country. I welcome the minister's reference to Agent of Change, which he will know is set to be taken forward to protect live music venues in Wales and in greater London. If amendments are brought forward to add Agent of Change to the provisions of the planning bill in this Parliament, will the minister have his Government support? I welcome Mr MacDonald's discussions with me on this issue. I welcome the discussions of Mr Arthur, Tom Arthur II, the cabinet secretary Fiona Hyslop and from the industry itself. We all know that there have been difficulties in certain places around about live music venues, and we have to do all that we possibly can to ensure that we protect this vital part of our heritage. We, as a Government, are aware of proposals that have been put forward by Wales, who are dealing with us through their planning policy rather than through legislation. I am also aware that the mayor of London is looking at the Agent of Change principle for the next London plan, and, of course, in the state of Victoria in Australia, their planning policy has something similar in that regard. As Mr MacDonald is aware of the discussions that I have had with him, I do not know whether that necessarily requires primary legislation. It may be changes to Scottish planning policy that are required. However, whatever change is required, he can be assured that I will be positive about the issue. Ruth Maguire, followed by Alexander Stewart. To ask the minister how he sees the planning bill as a key way of contributing to the delivery of much-needed affordable homes and, indeed, infrastructure in Ayrshire and throughout Scotland. The chamber will be absolutely sick to the back teeth of me talking about housing constantly. It is absolutely essential that the bill moves us forward in terms of our affordable housing delivery targets, whether that be in Ms Maguire's patch in Ayrshire or in any other part of the country. Everywhere I go, we need more housing here. We need to get on with the job of providing those warm affordable homes for people right across Scotland. The bill will allow for that to happen. We will be able to see areas that can be zoned for housing with permission granted up front. We must also ensure that we get the infrastructure and investment right as we build those homes across the country. Alexander Stewart, followed by Gleir Hocky. Can the minister confirm that local place plans prepared by local community bodies will not be undermined by Scottish ministers and detail the support that we have provided to those community bodies to ensure successful outcomes? I have already given my view about local plans that currently have no statutory place. I think that places and people in the likes of Linlithgow, who have come up with this, their own plans are to be applauded. I am certainly not going to undermine anybody's plans. What I would say is that there may be occasions where communities and others have to agree to disagree, but I would encourage communities the length and breadth of Scotland to get involved in spatial planning and community planning. I have gone to great lengths since taking over this role to try and encourage people to become involved in planning. In particular, I want to see more young folk involved in planning. There has been a great success in your constituency, Presiding Officer, in Gala Shields at Gala Academy, where pupils along with PASS are learning about the place standard. They have somewhat different ideas from older folk. All those ideas need to come into the mix, and I hope that young folk will get involved in local planning. To ask the Scottish Government how it intends to encourage stronger engagement with communities and people earlier in the planning process, rather than at the end, to ensure that the system works for all, including those who want to invest in the quality of our places and our economy. I know that Ms Hoche has taken a great interest in this, particularly in Cambuslang, if I remember rightly, in terms of engagement that she has had with me. I want communities like those in Cambuslang to have early engagement around the plans for their places. The bill itself encourages that. The local planning aspect will give communities like Cambuslang a great opportunity to shape their communities. Can the minister explain what an inclusive growth approach will mean for Scotland's poorest areas, and will he ensure that the new planning process will adequately engage and empower local communities? Absolutely. I want to see communities the length and breadth of Scotland engaged and empowered. In particular, as I said in my answer to Ms McNeill, I want local authorities to put emphasis on helping socially excluded communities to fulfil their ambitions in local place planning and community planning. As a Government, we will continue to do all that we can in community capacity building to ensure that communities have the same abilities as others that are a bit wealthier. I thank the minister and members. I managed to get all the questions in. I thank the minister for being succinct. That concludes questions of the statement. I will allow abuse suspension if we move on to the next item of business.