 I have to move straight on, as we are really short of time now. The next item in business is debate on motion 17781, in the name of Kevin Stewart on planning Scotland Bill. Before I invite Kevin Stewart to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary to signify crown consent to the bill. I call on Eileen Campbell. For the purpose of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the planning Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far, as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. I will now begin the debate. I will write those members who wish to speak the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Kevin Stewart to speak to and move the motion minister. I am so sorry. I do not think that your microphone is on. I mean, I am talking about the microphone. I push my card further in. I am delighted that we finally arrived at the stage 3 debate on the bill. A lot has happened since it was first introduced in December 2017. However, even now, after all of the time and all of those amendments, I am not yet tired of talking about planning, and I am looking forward to the debate this afternoon. Scotland needs a world-class planning system. Planning affects all our interests in the long term. Our future economy, our communities and our environment can all benefit if we get this bill right. The original aims of the bill were to streamline the system so that planners could focus less on procedures and more on planning places for people. The Global Thinker and Pioneering Town planner, Scotland's own Patrick Geddes, said that planning should be about place, work and folk. There is no neater way to summarise the contribution that planning can make to supporting sustainable and inclusive growth. We need a planning system that understands what people need and want, that enables good quality development and that is truly empowered to deliver great places. When the review of the Scottish planning system started, it aimed to look at planning from a user's perspective. The review recognised that users of planning include other public sector interests, communities and individuals as well as developers. Although the review set out to support housing delivery, the independent panel's report was not an agenda for deregulation or a developer's charter. By making the system more collaborative, it aimed to empower planning to deliver great places. Following the direction of travel, we carried out a great deal of work before the bill was drafted. It involved the many different interests in planning to help to shape proposals for change. However, it was clear then, and it has been throughout the parliamentary process, that it is very difficult for everyone to agree on how the system can be improved. The bill was always going to be a challenge. Planning is an important but often controversial subject. Planning is complex because communities are complex and at times its jargon can seem impenetrable. For a time, the bill became a little bit complicated too. After many hours of discussion and debate, I believe that we have achieved what we set out to do. Planning is clearly of interest to all of us. Many members have raised important issues that they want it to address. The scale of amendments at stage 2 and at stage 3 has been remarkable. As we near the end of the process, I believe that we have struck a good balance. The bill should be clear about what this Parliament wants planning to do but should also allow local flexibility to reflect local circumstances and the different needs of Scotland's people and places. The structural changes introduced by the bill will make planning much more straightforward, more open and better place to respond to a changing world. As well as supporting sustainable and inclusive economic growth, the Parliament has made it clear that planning can improve our quality of life and should be more open and accountable to the communities that we serve. Amendments have underlined the importance of planning for housing, including housing for older people and for disabled folk, equalities and health, and the bill will bring new powers to address issues, including short-term lets and the impacts of new development on music venues. Patrick Gettys pioneered the concept of thinking globally and acting locally. Sustainable development is now an integral part of a newly defined purpose for planning. I am pleased that there is a clear requirement to tackle climate change as a high-level outcome on the face of the bill. We know that planning should help us to make the most of our natural assets, and the bill reflects the importance of rural development, forestry, green space, play, environmental protection and built heritage. Those are important. Our places, our wellbeing and our economy depend on the health of our environment. Although we may have had different views on the best way of achieving those things, it is very welcome that the Parliament has set out those priorities so clearly. I am keen to ensure that the bill will empower communities to have a positive say in shaping their future. We have built in opportunities for everyone in society to be engaged in creating development plans, including children and young people, gypsy travellers and disabled people. I will give way to Mr Finlay. Neil Findlay. Does the minister accept that, if we pass the bill as it stands, there will be an inherent imbalance still within the system in favour of developers over communities? I need to conclude shortly, minister. I disagree with that completely and utterly. We have put in place local place plans, and I have been quite clear from the very beginning what we do not want is conflict at the end of the process. We want folk empowered at the beginning of the process and have their views heard at that point. Communities will have a new right to prepare local place plans, which planning authorities will need to take into account in the same way that they do the national planning framework. I am confident that communities from all backgrounds are willing and able to grasp this opportunity to plan their own places. We have also put in place new arrangements to support improved performance in the planning system. I want everyone to be confident that members of planning authorities have the understanding to enable them to make sound decisions. I am afraid that you must conclude. I am sorry. I have numerous organisations that I would like to thank. I wish I could hear them again. I am doing the summing up, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Have you moved your motion, please? I have moved the motion of our name. Thank you very much. I will call on James Simpson, equally tight for time, Mr Simpson. Here we are at the end of the road of the most amended bill in the history of the Scottish Parliament, a journey that, for MSPs, started in December 2017, when the bill was introduced, but for others it started much earlier. It was way back in September 2015 that the Scottish Government appointed an independent panel to review the planning system. In May 2016, the panel published a statement and its final report, Empowering Planning to Deliver Great Places. That contained 48 recommendations for reform over six main themes. In January 2017, the Government issued a consultation on places, people and planning, which ran until April. Then there was a position statement in June 2017, and then, of course, the bill in December of that year. That is when the problem started. MSPs got their hands on it, and the minister started having sleepless nights. The local government and communities committee did not hold back in its report on the bill in May last year. It was critical of virtually every section. Convener Bob Dorris was swiftly moved on, along with Jenny Gilruth. James Dornan came in as convener and faced a barrage of amendments. Over 300 of them and seven weeks of watching the minister squirm, after which he, the minister, described the bill as a goodle. He was right. In the stage 1 debate on the bill, I said that it achieved the almost impossible by pleasing no one, not house builders, not councils, not the environment lobby. It was silent on the environment and did nothing to achieve growth or deliver the new homes that we so desperately need. My approach for the final stage of the bill has been to try to rectify that, to sort out the goodle and to try and end up with something that delivers for all. I think that we have done that. Now, I have listened over the past two and a bit days to some utter rubbish from Labour and the Greens. Accusations of a stitch-up between us and the SNP of deals. Monica Lennon even accused me of betrayal yesterday. That is a strong word and I hope that she will reflect on it. I work very well with Mrs Lennon and Andy Wightman at stage 2. I was looking forward to working with Monica Lennon's replacement, Alex Rowley, but he showed no interest in doing so. He was not engaged. He is hidden away in his 70s tribal labour cave and not come out. The minister, however, having suffered a series of bloody noses at stage 2, has been keen to talk. I have got no problems at all in working with the Government where we agree on things. They have been welcoming of good ideas from those benches and we have achieved a lot of positive results. Let's have a look at some of them. We have the housing needs of older and disabled people recognised in the planning system. I am not taking interventions from Labour. We have heard more than enough from Labour over the past two days. We have the housing needs of older and disabled people recognised in the planning system thanks to Jeremy Balfour, Alexander Stewart and, I should also mention, Kenny Gibson. Mr Balfour worked with Mary Fee to bring in amendments on changing places facilities. Alexander Stewart tightened up the procedure on the infrastructure levy so that people do not pay twice for the same thing. Adam Tomkins introduced the agent of change principle into the bill. We had the unedifying spectacle on Tuesday of three middle-aged men trying to show their street cred by reeling off names of music venues that they had heard of. Rachael Hamilton's amendment on short-term lets will give councils the power to crack down in areas where there is a problem, such as Edinburgh. That, hopefully combined with a tough licensing regime, should make a real difference. I have had a few successes myself on the national planning framework that must now be targets for the use of land across Scotland. When preparing the MPF, ministers must be given information about the built heritage of an area, the educational capacity and the housing needs of the population. There is also now a robust procedure so that Parliament can scrutinise the MPF. On local development plans, the bread and butter of the planning system, they must also refer to the built heritage. The housing needs of the population of the area must also be taken into account. Ministers must issue guidance to planning authorities about undertaking effective community engagement in relation to the local plan. Those councils, covered by the central Scotland green network, should consult them on their LDPs. We have a purpose for planning, a concise one. We have the beginnings of a self-build revolution. We now have the requirement for housing land allocations to be agreed before they go into the plan, and that should provide certainty for communities and those wanting to invest. Councils must tell people that they can prepare local place plans and those same people can say which places are important to them in those plans. Biodiversity now features in the bill. Yesterday, even the Labour Party agreed to my amendment introducing mediation into the system. That will give communities a real say and hopefully avoid the conflict that mires the system at the moment. So we now have a bill that can deliver growth across Scotland that is greener, that includes communities in the decisions that affect them. I commend the Tory-style bill to the chamber. I have asked myself what are the big issues for planning and development in Scotland. First, a major block to housing development, and one that I have raised many times in the chamber, is the lack of upfront finance for infrastructure. By infrastructure, I do not mean roads and utilities, although there are challenges there, but what I mean is schools, health and community facilities. That, in my mind, is a major block to housing building. Will the bill do anything to address that? No, it will not. Second, there is a real sense of alienation in communities across Scotland where they have been experiencing the planning processes. Will the bill do anything to address that? Most certainly, it will not. Third, the planning system, as it currently stands, does little to support development and regeneration in town centres and post-industrial communities. Will the bill do anything to address that? No, it will not. Fourth, the only people that seem to be in denial about the impact on our communities of short-term lets is the Tories and the SNP in this place. Will the bill do anything about those concerns? Sadly, it will not. Fifth, will the bill address the unacceptable level cuts in finance and staffing in planning departments? No, it will not. All of this is why Scottish Labour will be voting against the planning bill today, because, frankly, it has become a missed opportunity to deliver real change that is so desperately needed in the planning system in Scotland. That is not to say that there are not positive elements to the bill. I am pleased that we have managed to secure some amendments that will make a difference. However, on the whole, the bill does not go anywhere near far enough as it needed to do. The planning system should be more engaging and used to empower people and communities, drive economic regeneration and protect the environment that we can all be proud of. It is disappointing that neither the SNP nor the Tories seem willing to support legislation that can achieve that. Instead, they seem to be quite content to vote together to put through legislation that will not tackle the big problems that we face as a country. The bill will not solve our housing crisis. It will not tackle the problems of a lack of joined-up approach to Government, nor will it deliver a necessary national house-building strategy. Instead, it is unambitious in its scope, which is disappointing as it had the potential to do so much more. The bill could have transformed the way that we plan our communities. It could have made our planning system less opaque and introduced a much-needed democratic element to our approach to planning. That was an opportunity for a more balanced share of power between communities and developers. It could have brought communities and social change to the forefront, but sadly the approach that has been taken instead is unambitious and is essentially business as usual. The SNP and the Tories were happy to vote together to block communities having the form of equal right of appeal in planning decisions. I have tried to put forward amendments that would rebalance power in the planning system and give communities a right of appeal with developers to a level playing field and make the system fairer for all. However, that is not supported by the parties, the Tories and the SNP in this chamber, who instead seem quite content to lend their support to big developers rather than communities—the communities that they are elected to represent. To be honest, the bill has become an SNP Tory stitch-up, and I hope that communities across the country will remember that when they experience the planning process themselves. Regretfully, without the change that is required to ensure the bill delivers a planning system that works in the interests of the many, Scottish Labour will vote against the planning bill today. After many hours of debate and months of parliamentary procedure, we have reached the end of the road. Despite our differences along the way, I thank my colleagues on the local government committee, particularly Alex Rowley and Monica Lennon, for their willingness to work together in putting in substantial efforts on the bill. We have had some fun along the way. I am disappointed in the tone of Graeme Simpson's opening remarks, but, nevertheless, I thank him for the times that we did work well together. There were good times, and I have fond memories. I would also like to thank the minister and his officials for their constructive engagement in some of what I, from my green colleagues, were interested in. We secured important amendments on public toilets and water refill points, took up some time at stage 2, on gypsy travellers, on air quality, on open spaces, on forestry strategies and on the purpose of planning. At the third reading of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, Lewis Silkin, who is Labour's Minister of Town and Country Planning, noted that, "...plannings concerned to insecure that our limited land resources are used to the best advantage of the nation as a whole and it provides for resolving the often conflicting claims upon any particular piece of land." Over the past few decades, the private developer has become the prime mover in the planning system, rather than the public authority. As a result, public trust has broken down, it has been eroded and powerful private interests and money have corrupted the public interest. The bill was an opportunity to fundamentally reform how planning works, and, yes, to streamline and to simplify where possible, but more importantly to deliver a decisive shift in favour of a proper plan-led system where planners, elected members and communities can work together in a collaborative effort to shape the places where we live where we can play. I know that ambition is about much more than legislation, and I know that a variety of excellent practice is taking place across Scotland to engage communities and to facilitate high-quality placemating. However, the whole system still suffers from excessive complexity and, over the past 30 years, has placed greater and greater emphasis on the interests of private interests. Nowhere is this more clear than in our collective failure again to reform appeal rights. Not that I stress to introduce a third-party right of appeal, but to reform the whole system of appeals. In our stage 1 report, we were clear in our unanimous recommendation 224. The committee is conscious that the availability of appeals to applicants undermines confidence in a plan-led system. Appeals can be lodged free of charge and irrespective of whether an application is in accordance with the development plan. The committee believes that, in a plan-led system, appeals should only be allowed in certain circumstances. As Dr Andy Inge from planning democracy said in oral evidence, the planning system is adversarial because of the discretion that exists at the end of the process, which, by and large, means that speculative development applications are put forward and people react to them. An ambition to up-front planning has to be matched by the integrity of the plan. In such a scenario, no appeal should be allowed at all and a properly considered determination should stand as the final word. In 2015, when cabinet secretary Alex Neill announced that there would be an independent review of the planning system, he said that it would be a root and branch review with game-changing ideas for radical reform. When the independent panel reported back, the planning minister, Kevin Stewart, welcomed the work, noting that it would help to form the basis to kickstart a new, focused and revitalised planning system. Instead, we were given a bill that delivered businesses as usual for the planning system while proposing a degree of centralisation that was quite alarming. On the panel and its report back, would Mr Wightman recognise that the independent panel was not in favour of third-party rights of appeal and that it suggested that we have followed that we needed to do more engagement up front, which we have done in the bill? I recognise that the panel rejected third-party rights of appeal, but they said nothing about applicants' rights of appeal. They did not even look at it. Now as we contemplate the bill in its final form, apart from a bit of tinkering around the edges, there is nothing that is radical or game-changing. Nothing to protect communities against their hollowing out by short-term lets. Nothing to bring hill tracks and the vandalism under democratic scrutiny. I think that the heart of this failure is a failure of process. Had I been planning minister, here is how I would have proceeded. First of all, I had convened a cross-party round-table talks to discuss the interests and concerns of members. Second, I have introduced a consolidating bill rather than an amending bill that has proven so difficult for the electorate to understand. Third, I had set out a coherent vision and set out principles to underpin the bill. It was notable at stage 1 when I asked the minister what the general principles of the bill were. He did not have an answer. Finally, I would have maintained and worked to build that cross-party consensus throughout the process. We are where we are. I know that the minister is a big fan of the 1952 Aberdeen city plan. Tom Johnson, the former Secretary of State, wrote in the foreword, observed that the alternative to planning is no planning, it is chaos and waste. Yes, the purpose of planning is at the very least to prevent chaos and waste, but it is more positively to promote the allocation of land in the public interest and for the common good. That ambition is still not being realised. In the stage 1 debate, I made the following comments. I said that greens can't believe that planning can and must be a force for good for delivering high-quality environments, reducing inequalities and promoting public interest in the use of land. To achieve that, substantial amendment will be required. If that was the final bill, I said then, we would be voting against it tonight. It can be improved, however, and we will therefore be voting to keep it in play. It is our considered view that the bill has not had the substantial amendment required to transform the planning system in the way that we envisage, to deliver a plan-led system where communities have autonomy to determine for themselves. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. In the tidal wave of insults that Graham Simpson offered members during one of the more indecorous contributions that I have heard in this chamber, he reminded of two things. First is the establishment in 2015 of the expert panel on which no planner sat and was given almost impossibly tight timescales to report. He also reminded us of the fact that this is one of the most amended bills in parliamentary history. Both of those realities give the measure of one of the reasons, one of the many reasons, my party and I'm glad to see the Labour Party and the Greens will not be supporting it tonight. It is bad legislation. The Liberal Democrats were, of course, the only party to oppose this bill at stage 1. I'll come on to the reasons for that. I welcome very much the Labour Party and the Green Party in standing in opposition tonight, as they will do so. We oppose this bill because it is a manifest exercise in centralisation. It presupposes that Edinburgh-based bureaucrats know more about the needs and interests of communities around this country than local elected councillors do. We just cannot accept that. It relegates local councils to the role of mere consultees. In the national planning framework, we see a document that will not have adequate scrutiny, which will set the mission for planning authorities as a delivery tool of that organism, and it is unacceptable. I thank the member for taking intervention. It was one of the amendments that we secured at stage 2 and stage 3 that the national planning framework will, for the first time, be subject to a resolution of Parliament, so there should be a greater scrutiny. That's a fair point to concede. I absolutely accept that. I don't still believe that it has the necessary scrutiny that we as Liberal Democrats would have liked to see, but I recognise the progress that was made at stage 2. As I do in some of the debates that I sat in on at stage 2, I'm grateful for the forbearance of committee members. It is not a committee on which I am a member, but I obtained a number of changes in that process, which I was grateful for. The one that survived is going to be really important in terms of forcing local authorities to produce reports that denote the obligations or planning commitments of developers in section 75 and the like that they have not yet delivered on. I hope very much that that will see an end to shameful practices by deliverers who make false promises to communities before reaping the profits of a development and not delivering on their obligations to planning gain. That is the one amendment that survived. My other amendment sadly did not. Yesterday, I had a rather bizarre debate around the protection of Greenfield and the suggestion that my amendment secured at stage 2 would have somehow banned any development on Greenfield. That is not the intention in any way. If you wanted to extend your house, you could reasonably suggest to the local authority that it is not possible to build on Brownfield because that Brownfield is not attached to your house. I think that that would be a completely acceptable reason to allow you permission to proceed. It is, as Andy Wightman said, a bill of missed opportunities. Although we have different approaches to that, Liberal Democrats did want to see reform on appeal rights as well. Our own vision was rejected at stage 2 for that, but, frankly, the needle returns to the start of the song on this. Yet again, we go round and round again in recognition that appeal rights do not work for communities. The member is closing in 30 seconds. I am closing in 30 seconds. On holiday nights, there is an Edinburgh MSP with an interest that I refer people to. I still think that we have missed a trick in not being able to regulate—use this bill to properly regulate—the holiday night market, which is hollowing out cities such as Edinburgh. We have not grasped the opportunity to protect things such as wild land or to regulate hill tracks. We are told that planning bills come every 10 years. That is a great shame, and I hope very much that the next planning bill will come sooner. I look forward very much to repealing this one from the Government benches. I am so sorry. We are very, very tight for time. It is open debate, very, very tight speeches, and that means that you do not overgo over your four minutes. James Dornifold by Alexander Stewart. I am surprised that you said that as I was getting up to speak, Presiding Officer, but thank you for that, and thank you, Alec, for that wee joke just at the end of your speech there. As a convener of the local government community's committee, I am truly delighted that we have reached stage 3, the planning Scotland bill. After a successful passing of the fuel poverty bill, as a committee, we are now nearing the end of the legislative process for a second bill in as many weeks, a marked contrast to the inaction at Westminster, showing once again this Parliament that truly works for the people of Scotland. The work at stage 1 was truly gargantuan, and I can say that without bias, as I was not a member of the committee at the time. The committee made visits all over Scotland, took part in a major planning conference in Stirling, and engaged with school students in the Scottish Youth Parliament. I also took evidence from 25 different organisations at formal meetings producing a very thorough report making recommendations in relation to every major aspect of the bill. I want to pay tribute to the colleagues who were on the committee at the time, except for maybe Graham Simpson, because of his opening comments, but particularly the then convener, my colleague Bob Doris, for their commitment and hard work. More importantly, I thank the many professionals, community bodies and individuals who engaged with the committee at stage 1 and indeed throughout the bill's progress, which informed at times passionate views. Ultimately, planning is about communities, homes, jobs and a quality of life issues, and because of this, the debate has sometimes been passionate and even on occasion heated, but that is no bad thing and it only goes to underline the importance of the reforms that we have been considering. I actually became convener of the local government community committee on the very first day of our consideration of the bill at stage 2, and I believe, to be honest, that Bob did not get shuffled off except for the needed arrest after having to put up with you throughout the whole stage 1, Graham. Since that day in September, the parliamentary process has been a bit of a marathon. I am reliable informed that this was the longest stage 2 in the Parliament for well over a decade and the longest stage 2 ever considered by the local government committee. I am sure that I speak for all committee members when I say, we hope that this record stands for a very, very, very long time. Total 394 amendments were laid and looking back, it feels as if they were considered over the same number of meetings, but actually it was only seven. Many non-committee members took partner proceedings, again reflecting the very wide interest that there has been in the bill throughout, and I sincerely like to place in record my thanks to all my committee members, our fabulous clerking team, along with our colleagues from SPICE, everyone who appeared before the committee, and of course to the minister and all his officials. It is fair to say that the bill that emerged at stage 2 was a rather different beast to the one that went into it, with well over 100 amendments agreed to adding to a removing text from the bill. This included new provisions and key matters, including on the agent of change principle to protect live music venues, on planning permission for short-term lets, on the call-in of applications, on enhanced community engagement and on a whole host of other important matters, which, if I listed them now, would take up all the remaining time in my speech and get me into trouble from the Presiding Officer. With the two days, two long days of great debates and 40 different groups of amendment, and we're now at the home straight, and Presiding Officer, despite what we've heard from some of my colleagues here who take the credit for any good bits that are in the planning bill at stage 3 and, say, the rest of its rubbish, those reforms will create an effective planning system that will help to deliver the housing, infrastructure and investment that current and future generations need. It will strengthen and simplify the planning system and will ensure that planning better serves Scotland's communities and economy. I look forward to seeing how those reforms will shape a fairer and more equal Scotland in the future. Thank you very much. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As I mentioned before in the chamber, having been a former council for 18 years, I know too well the issues that can be raised by the planning process. We have seen many amendments go through over the stage of the bill, but there has been some real progress. While planning is often characterised as a zero sum game in which there are winners and there are losers, what we want to see is planning should be a place for people and should be a good development. We need more houses, everyone acknowledges that and we believe that the vast majority of people are not against development in its space, but they are against development that has not got the necessary infrastructure requirements. The bill has come a long way from where it started and was originally tabled. I think that many of the amendments have been put forward, have set to strengthen the bill. With that in mind, I have always thought that it is important that we do all that we can to encourage communities to constructively assist an early stage to ensure that the planning process. I think that the introduction of local place plans that we will follow in communities is a greater say, and that is exactly what we want to see in a positive step. In the early stages of the bill, we were concerned about the time, the effort and the money that communities would require to put into development, and that has now taken place. I think that the concerns have now been erased from what we saw in stage 2. In stage 2, yes, we ended up in a good old. There is no question about that, but in stage 3, we have managed to iron out many of those problems. I welcome the fact that there is now a commitment for greater public consultation in the planning authorities will formally be required to take any local place plan into account when formalising the local development plans. That is very welcome. Another community engagement issue, and one that is much more contentious during the debate, was that of the third party right of appeals. As previously stated on the bill, we said that we would closely examine the case for this, and we did so. We concluded that such a change would simply further slow up the planning process and stifle development, but it has also become clear that the status quo was not an option. We therefore sought to research, compromise and get a balance out of the whole process. That has been achieved. The changes in the amendments that I have come forward about mediation will be an integral part of the planning process, and not just something that will attempt one, but it will actually mean something, and there will be much more development and progress. Bringing together two different points of view can often be difficult, but time is tight. In reality, it is difficult to have two points of view coming together, but what we have seen is common ground here. I pay tribute to my colleagues Graham Simpson, Adam Tomkins and Jeremy Balfour for their measured contributions in this entire process. I am proud of the constructive role that the Scottish Conservatives have played in strengthening this bill at every stage to ensure that we end up with fundamentally better planning processes going forward. We are protecting the environment, we are protecting older and disabled people, and we are ensuring that there is much more process taking place. We are attempting to ensure that mediation goes forward, so good planning requires communities, developments and councils to work together constructively to build those houses that we need and that communities want to see. We are ambitious about what we want to see for our planning process, and that has taken place. That is by no means an easy task, but I think that the bill, as it now stands, will come some way to helping us to achieve our objectives. That is exactly what we want to try to do to ensure that the objectives of the bill are better for communities, are better for individuals, are better for people, and I support the bill. I call Neil Findlay, followed by Kenneth Gibson. Presiding Officer, is it three minutes or four? Three. It was planning that got me into elected politics, and I want to focus on why, how planning impacts on communities and how the bill has failed them. I saw over that time developers with deep pockets hire consultants to write so-called independent reports, produce glossy documents and buy-off opponents. When applications were refused, they had the right to appeal refusals and resource public inquiries. Communities, on the other hand, have no resources, no consultants, no lawyers, no expert witnesses for hire and no right of appeal. Some found themselves thrown at the maelstrom of a planning inquiry, but they are required to invest huge amounts of time writing recognitions, preparing their case and being questioned by lawyers and even QCs, with zero resources available to them. How on earth is that fair? It is not. It is a democratic outrage that that still happens. I want to paraphrase a letter that I received almost 20 years ago from Mary Allison, who was objecting to an opencast co-application in Black Ridge. She said, no matter how open ministers claim the planning system to be, communities are intimidated by the power of the professionals that they face, their views as residents are dismissed as less competent or credible than those so-called experts. But professional presentations are simply a collection of information. They are not right or wrong until we bring our values and judgments to their interpretation and can assess whether the community or the developer is set to gain or lose by a development. Those who present information as scientific evidence are elevated to a position of greater value than the community, who may, for various reasons, struggle to express their individual or community position. Personal, emotional and moral values are the centre of our society, yet, because they are subjective, they can easily be disregarded. Scientific evidence can be just as subjectively gathered but objectively presented. Why does a study conducted one day by a so-called expert from outside the community mean more than the daily lived experience of someone who has lived their all their life? Here is an example. I value the rugged moorland of my home village. It is where I fished. It is where I camped and walked and cycled growing up. The landscape gives me a sense of place in who I am. It is valuable to me and my community. It cannot be recreated. That is not nimbyism. That is about community-led development that is popular support, not a neoliberal planning system where profit and economic growth trumps everything. Presiding Officer, this week the SNP, the Tories and their business allies have stitched up this planning bill. The dogs in the street know it. On equal rights of appeal, on short-term lets, they have shamefully let communities down, bought and sold for developers' gold, they had a chance to introduce equality and they miserably failed in a shabby deal across the chamber with the front bench of the SNP and the Tories. Thank you very much, Mr Findlay. Can I just say the avoidance of doubt? Kenneth Gibson has four minutes. Jeremy Balfour and Annabelle Ewing each have three minutes. That is for political balance. Kenneth Gibson. Thank you for that, Presiding Officer. That is very helpful. Today's debate is a culmination of countless hours of work and contributions from numerous people and organisations across Scottish society. As a member of the local government and community committee, I myself and colleagues have heard evidence from numerous organisations and the engagement of the local government and housing minister, Kevin Shear, Kevin Shear, was also invaluable. I like to offer sincere thanks to everyone who contributed this process where it has been impossible without the evidence that led to 394 amendments being submitted at stage 2 and 223 ahead of stage 3. Journalist Alison Grant described the planning Scotland bill as, and I quote, the three most distressing words in the English language. However, consultant architect Malcolm Fraser gave evidence at stage 1 that planning should be a wonderful, joyful thing. I think that most of us have a view somewhere between those two extremes. The bill to overhaul the current planning system and amplify the voices of local people and communities was brought forward to take that through the whole planning process. To touch on broad sections of the bill, part 1 enhances the role of the national planning framework in removing the requirement to produce strategic development plans, while introducing a new right for communities to produce their own local place plans. Part 2 provides for simplified development zones to frontload scrutiny of potential sites, delivering consents to zoning land. Part 3 changes development management process to improve efficiency. It is what local consultation and move towards localised decision making. Part 4 strengthens planning authority's ability to effectively use their powers to ensure appropriate enforcement of unauthorised development and widen the scope for charging fees in relation to planning functions while taking a more structured approach to performance improvement across planning services. The final part provides for the introduction of an infrastructure levy payable to local authorities linked to development to fund or contribute to projects that incentivise development delivery. It was important to me that the bill contained provisions to support the needs of older people and disabled people in Scotland. I thank Age Scotland in particular for their assistance with my amendments at stage 2, which sought to place our needs of older and disabled people at the heart of the national planning framework. Good accessible housing is central to the health and independence of older people and disabled people. I am pleased that, under the bill, the NPF will contribute to improved outcomes for older people and disabled people. Ministers are now required to publish a statement on how that will be achieved. I was therefore pleased at the minister's willingness to engage with myself, Graham Simpson and other colleagues who are willing to engage with him cross-party to take forward the spirit of those amendments while streamlining the bill to avoid unnecessary duplication and cost. That involves removing some of our own amendments, but what is important is not who's amendments in the face of the bill but what the bill can achieve in practice. In terms of older people and disabled people, I am delighted that our hardworking and listening minister has delivered. Following a somewhat arduous process, we now have a better bill that will more closely respond to the planning needs of Scotland's people and communities. Planning requires a system that balances the needs of many. It is quite disappointing that what we have seen this afternoon is some gripes from Labour, Greens and the Liberal Democrats, who seem to think that the bill, as it currently stands, is actually worse in the status quo. I am struggling to understand how they could possibly believe that, having gone through what we have over the past 18 months or so throughout this entire process, they clearly want to throw the baby out with the bath water. However, I believe that we have now arrived with a more coherent, fair and inclusive system that will work for Scotland, and I urge all members to vote for it at decision time. I thank the opportunity to briefly contribute to the final debate. I congratulate the minister, his team and all the members of the committee for getting us where we are today. I disagree fundamentally with the other three opposition parties. I think that we have a bill that is workable and is better than the present system at the moment. Could it have been better? Clearly, if all my amendments had been accepted, that would have been the case, but I think that we are far better down the road than we were several years ago. I say that as someone like others in the chamber who used to be a local councillor and who used to sit on the planning committee here in Edinburgh. I completely disagree with Alex Cole-Hamilton, but I do not think that that has taken away power from local councils. In fact, it will help local councillors to come to decisions. Ultimately, in 99 per cent of cases, that is where the power should lie. They know their local communities, and I think that the bill allows that to do. I have been frustrated, perhaps even more than the minister, by the debate that we have had around appeals and third-party rights of appeal in particular. For me, many people have painted this in a very simplistic way. It is the community against a developer. My time as a local councillor here in Edinburgh was hardly ever the case, almost on every controversial planning application that came forward. Some of the community wanted it, and some of the community did not want it. In all the debates that I heard over both the committee and the last two days, no one addressed those who were in favour of the development going ahead. Where did they get their voice? Where were they allowed to say we want this to go ahead? It was way over simplistic—I am afraid that my time is almost gone—to say that it is community against a developer. It was never that simple in my time. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, I am particularly pleased, like Kenny Gibson, who has spoken previously, that we have greater rights for disabled and older people in the bill. I think that one of the things that the bill—I said this yesterday—will stand out is that we are going to change the way in which people do public toilets. That may seem very simple and straightforward, but, for the Scottish economy, and more important, for families and individuals, it will radically change what will look like over the next 50 years. For that, I am grateful for the support of all the chamber, and I will certainly be happy to vote for that in a few minutes' time. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The time that I now have available, I will focus on a few issues only. First, it is vital that local communities have a meaningful role in the planning process, and I know very well from constituents that, in many cases, they feel literally under siege from developers. While there will never be a system that can be devised that will please everyone, I am encouraged by the approach of the bill to front-load community engagement. That was recommended by the independent planning review panel, which concluded that it would be more beneficial to use available time and resources to focus on improved early engagement. I am also encouraged that statutory guidelines are to be drawn up on what effective community engagement is to comprise, and it will be important to ensure that those guidelines provide for meaningful engagement if we want to keep faith with impacted communities across Scotland. The role of the local place plan is another important development, but, again, it will only be of relevance to local communities if they have in fact the wherewithal to get involved. On the issue of serial applications, I am pleased to see that the relevant period has been extended from the current two years to five years. However, that will only be worth the paper that is written on if local authorities actually exercise their powers here, which does not appear to be the case at the present time, I would ask the minister. Therefore, to now take this issue up directly with COSLA, as by failing to deal with serial applications local authorities are letting down the communities that they are there to serve. On local health service impacts, I am pleased to note, too, that there is to be a greater focus on this issue in the planning process because this issue is raised time and again by local communities. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the third party right of appeal issue. In fact, those proposals were rejected yesterday by this Parliament by 93 votes to 25. I do not think that anyone would claim that that was an easy issue, but I do believe that the Parliament has reached the best decision. As I said at stage 2, the body of evidence was not in favour of a third party right of appeal being introduced into the planning system in Scotland. It is worth noting that there is no third party right of appeal in any country in the UK. In Ireland, where there is such an appeal process, it is interesting to note in any event that very few decisions have been wholly reversed. No such third party right was recommended by the independent planning review panel, and, indeed, we receive strong representations against the introduction of such a right of appeal by a myriad of relevant bodies. Across Scotland, people need homes, workplaces and facilities, so what we therefore need to see is those objectives being met, but in accordance with a robust, fair and straightforward planning process. That is the only way in which we will restore faith in the planning process. Thank you very much and thank you to members for their shortened speeches, which they all kept to despite the demands on them. I now call them on a call in at close for labour. I will begin by referring to my register of interests as a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I recall that, when I went to planning school at the University of Shav Clyde back in 1997, I had a deep interest in the power dynamics that play out in our communities and that ultimately influenced the decisions that shaped the places where we live, work and play to paraphrase Patrick Gettys. The obsession about equal rights of appeal is fundamental to how our planning system operates and in whose interests it serves. There are many people to thank, so I will add my thanks to the local government and communities committee members, the clerks and all the stakeholders, but the many people and organisations who gave us written evidence and oral evidence. As you should be thinking about planning, you have to get out of Parliament. I was very pleased to spend time with Graham Simpson at a consultation event or engagement event in Motherwell in the region that we represent, where people made quite clear at that session. I have just looked at the committee's report on it that people felt quite strongly that the current appeal system works against communities and undermines the confidence that we all want people to have. I just wanted to remind Graham Simpson of that, because we have not come into the process of making cheap political points. I think that James Dornan has reflected on how much scrutiny has actually happened. I thank James Dornan and Bob Doris for their leadership, but the fact that more than 100 amendments were passed shows how much collaboration and consensus there actually was. Graham Simpson knows the arguments very well. Graham Simpson also said at stage 2 that there is no doubt that the present system is lopsided and that the Government is not addressed as in the bill. He talked about equal rights of appeal and whether ERA would lead to a more robust plan-led system. I am afraid, although we did support mediation because it is not going to do any harm, it is not going to do a great deal of good. To Graham Simpson, I know that he said that we have been talking rubbish and so on, but we did work really hard together with Andy Wightman and spent a lot of time on that. Privately, Graham Simpson and Will will be disappointed as many of us are. We wanted to make sure that planning is going to deliver better outcomes for all the communities that we live in and the people that we represent. That is why we have talked enough law about improving health and trying to reconnect planning to public health. Andy Wightman has made the point very well many times about planning has lost its way and become a wee bit too bureaucratic at times. There have been some positive amendments. The work that Lewis MacDonald has led on the agent of change and speaking up for live music venues has been really important, but there have been some disappointments along the way, particularly on short-term lets. There are strong feelings in the chamber and outside the chamber. We do not have a lot of time. As we get this appointment, we have to say that we are not supporting the bill because I think that all of us wanted to really maximise the opportunity. If I can just end with quoting Claire Simons from planning democracy because it is about the community voice, that is what we need to hear. She says that we are deeply disappointed with the bill, which has been a huge missed opportunity to transform the way that we do planning. Scotland needs to take a different approach to development, to tackle key issues such as climate emergency. The bill reinforces a business-as-usual approach. She says that it is a bitter pill that the bill has nothing to offer in terms of citizen empowerment. It is quite sad that that is how communities in Scotland feel. Thank you very much. I now call on Adam Tomkins to close with the Conservatives. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. At stage 1 of the bill, some 13 months ago, 29 May last year, I said this in the stage 1 debate. The purpose of planning is to facilitate and enable growth in Scotland's economy. To grow the economy, we need development, and to engineer development should be the focus of the planning system. Of course, development needs to be environmentally sustainable and, of course, growth needs to be socially inclusive, but, first and foremost, it does need to be growth. The job of the planning system is to help to make that happen, to facilitate it and not to get in its way. Our approach to the bill throughout the process, throughout the entire process, all three stages of it, has been informed by those principles. I would like to start by welcoming the fact that, at least mainly since stage 2, the Government has sought to work with us to ensure, as best as possible, that the bill delivers on this core mission. I think that it does. I think that it passes that test. I think that this bill, when we enact it in a few moments' time, will help to secure growth, environmentally sustainable growth and socially inclusive growth that will help the development of the Scottish economy. That is the purpose of the planning system, not at the moment, Mr Weitman. Let me give two examples of the ways in which I think that this bill has been improved during the course of its passage through this Parliament that will help to deliver on that ambition. First, with regard to master plan consent areas, as they are now to be called, which was a part of the bill that was amended at stage 2 in a number of amendments in my name that were accepted, I think, unanimously by the committee. Secondly, with regard to the welcome reintroduction of regional spatial strategies, I know that the minister had, as one of his ambitions going into this bill, the removal of the need for strategic planning. I absolutely understood the case for that. The case for that was about removing unnecessary duplication in the Scottish planning system, but at the same time, and as a number of us pointed out, both on the Labour benches and on the Conservative benches, strategic planning has a very valuable role in driving forward Scottish economic growth, seen most recently and most importantly through the impact that city and regional growth deals are having across the country, not least in my own city of Glasgow. I think that the minister has done well, if I may say so, in finding a compromise between his desire not to have duplication at this level and our desire not to see regional strategic planning lost entirely from the face of our planning system through the introduction at stage 3 of regional spatial strategies, which he said when we were debating the set of amendments, our agile are better able to reflect and refine regional needs and priorities. They are healthily bottom up, I think, rather than top down, and they get the balance right between central and local government. These are examples of ways in which I think the bill has been improved consistently with the principled approach that we have taken to the bill throughout all three stages of its consideration. There are things that are still not in this bill, which I regret are not in this bill. Let me just say a few things about land development capture or land value sharing as it might now be called, because that is something that we talked about at stage 1 and indeed at stage 2. I note that in the recent recommendations that were made by the Scottish Land Commission, two Scottish ministers just last month, Shona Glenn of the Scottish Land Commission, said that the debate about how publicly created uplifts in land value should be shared between society and private landowners is one that has waxed and waned for decades. There is a strong public interest, Presiding Officer. There is a strong public interest justification for pursuing policies that would enable more of the publicly created increases in land values to be used to help to make places where people want to live and work, I would have said. I accept, as she says, that there is no quick fix for this, but we need to find ways to establish a more collaborative approach to place making. I want to continue to press the minister that land value sharing or land value capture should be part of that mix. We recognise, however, that there were fatal flaws in our attempts to get land value capture on to this bill at stage 2 in the context of master plan consent areas, not least ECHR compliance. However, our agreement that these amendments should be taken out at stage 3 should not be misinterpreted. We have not given up on the idea, and we will continue to pursue the Government on it. Finally, Presiding Officer, I want to say something about agent of change. I am absolutely delighted that, for the first time in Scott's planning law, this bill puts the agent of change principle unambiguously on the face of primary legislation. The agent of change principle shifts responsibility for mitigating the impact of noise from an existing music venue to a developer moving into the area. In essence, this is my last sentence, Presiding Officer, it means that those bringing about a change take responsibility for its impact. That is a key change that this legislation makes. It would be very interesting to see if Lewis MacDonald, a few minutes, votes against the bill that puts this principle on a statute. You were on your feet for a moment, but you are back down again. No, you cannot intervene, you cannot just have a wee chance. Thank you for your whatever. I call on Kevin Stewart to wind up the Government minister. Presiding Officer, first of all, can I put on record my thanks to everyone who has engaged in this process from the very beginning to where we are now, which is not the end of the road, and I will come to that in a little while. In particular, I would like to thank my bill team, who have been exceptional in all of that. In particular, Andy Cunard and Gene Waddey, who have been absolute stars in all of that. One of the things that Mr Wightman pointed out is my love affair with the Aberdeen city local plan of 1952. He quoted from it earlier on. I will paraphrase, because Tom Johnson in that forward always said that the only thing to stop the delivery of that plan was the red weevils of bureaucracy. I am afraid that, after stage 2, there were far too many red weevils of bureaucracy that would have held up the delivery of development here in Scotland. I am glad that folks have chosen to work together in a lot of cases to make sure that we get it right now. I will turn to a few things that were said during the debate. Mr Rowley said that the bill does nothing for funding infrastructure, such as education and medical facilities. The infrastructure levy proposals explicitly mentioned those things. He also said that the bill does not address a lack of funding for planning. It does, because actually streamlining the processes will free up money to ensure that local authorities can do much more community engagement. That is something that I wanted to see right from the start. Ms Ewing, in her contribution, said that planning authorities should use their powers more, their existing powers and new powers introduced in the bill to effectively safeguard communities. I agree completely and utterly with that. As well as strengthening all the things that we have done, providing elected members with training opportunities will hopefully help them. I want to turn to comments that were made by Alex Cole-Hamilton, Mr Rowley and Mr Whiteman. He said that the bill assumes that a group of Edinburgh-based bureaucrats know better than communities across the country. The bill includes a range of measures to give local planning authorities and local communities more powers. That includes the power for local authorities to bring forward controls on short-term lets. Rather than imposing an Edinburgh-based solution on the whole country, we have ensured during the course of the bill that communities can make their own choices in those regards. I agree that planning, as well as strengthening communities, should ensure sustainable economic growth. That is something that we all accept. One of the things that I would say to those folks who have indicated that they are going to vote no tonight and try to vote down the bill is that they will be voting no to all those things. A clear purpose for planning is putting the long-term public interest and sustainable development at the heart of the system. A stronger national planning framework that is approved by this Parliament after fuller scrutiny. Much better arrangements for strategic and local development planning that will address the problems of the current system. Statutory support for climate change, rural communities, disuse railway lines, water refill locations, public conveniences, changing places toilets, open space, play biodiversity, forestry and woodlands. They will also be voting against the recognition of the role of planning and supporting health inequalities. They will be voting against protection for live music venues. They will be voting against more consistent training for councillors. They will be voting against a performance improvement co-ordinator to support authorities and everyone who engages with planning, which is something that stakeholders wanted. They will be voting against a right for communities to plan their own places and new opportunities to broaden engagement and development plans, including for disabled people, older people, gypsy travellers, children and young people. In order to ensure that we got this right, at every stage, I asked the chief planner of this country, will this bill improve the system? At many points during this process, he said no. He says today that yes, this will improve the system and build upon what we have before. It is now time to get our sleeves up, grasp the opportunity and work hard together with communities to deliver great places. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate on stage 3 of the Planning Scotland Bill. It is night time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 17883, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliament of Bury, setting out a revision to next week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion. I wish to make a comment rather than speak against it, but, as you will be aware, Labour's whip is unavoidably not here today. In her absence, I can express concern about the 7 o'clock decision time on next Tuesday. That has not been a very family-friendly Parliament recently. Can I ask that time management be controlled? This week's contributions seemed more akin to speeches instead of the previous approach, which was about two minutes maximum to move amendments at stage 3. Scottish Labour will reluctantly vote for the business motion, but we do so in the sincere hope that decision time can be brought forward from the 7pm proposal that is in the business motion that has been brought forward this evening. Thank you very much minister. Do you wish to respond? Yes, very briefly on behalf of the bureau. Can I give the member the assurance that the members of the bureau always seek to have decision times that are in keeping with the established pattern? Can I also associate myself on behalf of the bureau with her remarks about concise contributions that would go some way to avoiding situations such as those that were encountered? Thank you very much. The question is that motion 17883 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 17781, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the planning Scotland Bill be agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The result of division is yes, 78, no, 26 and there were no abstention. The motion is there for agreed and the planning Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting of Parliament.