 Felly, I invite members who are leaving the chamber to do so as quickly and as quietly as possible. Y final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion 6-3-0-2, in the name of Emma Harper, on transforming Scotland's vacant and derelict sites. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, so I invite members wishing to participate in the debate, to press the requests to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call Emma Harper to open the debate for around seven minutes, Ms Harper. I'm pleased to open this member's debate and I thank the members who have signed my motion allowing us to debate transforming Scotland's vacant and derelict sites. I thought that this was a motion that could have achieved all-party cross-party support because it's relevant to most communities in Scotland as a third of the population lives within 500 metres of a derelict site. So I am a wee bit hanging in the lugget not to have any conservative support. Perhaps there are three Conservative members who could explain why in their contributions. I want to thank the Scottish Land Commission for all that it does to facilitate the change to Scotland's vacant, abandoned and derelict sites and to bring about practical solutions for the public sector. Real examples are presented in the Scottish Land Commission's places to live, places to power, places to grow, play, connect, learn, renew, work and imagine paper. In particular I thank the Scottish Land Commission chair Andrew Thin and the head of policy Shona Glenn for meeting with me and for their continued engagement with my office. Presiding Officer, as I said at the start, the legacy of Scotland's industrial past means that almost a third of the Scottish population currently lives within 500 metres of a derelict site. In communities on the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, that figure increases to 55 per cent. Fixing urban dereliction could play a major role in addressing health inequalities and improving wellbeing, but the benefits do not just stop there. Tackling urban dereliction could help to solve some of society's biggest challenges. The benefits of addressing derelict land are obvious, yet we are still seeing heels being dragged when it comes to bringing about the change that is needed. The Scottish Land Commission has intimated that, for far too long, the issue of repairing, renewing and renovating brownfield derelict sites has been dumped on the too difficult pile. We need to change the narrative. We need to recognise the massive opportunity that presents us. Understanding and assessing the impacts of blight on those living near the derelict land provides a powerful evidence base to help communities and decision makers act. In addition to the obvious impacts of derelict sites, such as the visual disturbance and embarrassment that communities feel by living next to them, there is also substantial evidence of the negative health implications of dereliction. In 2016, the findings from joint research by the Scottish Land Commission, Glasgow Centre for Population Health, Glasgow University and Partners, were brought together in a report that, for the first time, identified the major causes of Scotland's excess mortality. It is quite interesting that the point that I am coming to now follows on from the health and equality debate that we have just had. One of the factors in the report identified what an adverse physical environment caused by living in and around dereliction happens. The study found that living close to or next to those areas leads to poor mental health, feelings of being unsafe, anxiety and persistent low mood. We have many derelict sites across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, the George Hotel in Strenard, former rubber or interfloor factory in Dumfries, central hotel in Anand, the Mercury hotel in Moffat and the N Peel and Glen Mac buildings in Hoig. However, in my engagement to see action, I have responses from site owners and local authorities. The local authority response is that we do not have the powers to deal with derelict sites, so I checked. That was confirmed by the Scottish Parliament's information centre that local authorities do have several options available to act on derelict sites. The council in Dumfries and Galloway has been run by the SNP and Labour for more than a few years now. Why are you letting down the people of Strenard who have had to live next to the George Hotel for all these years? I am letting anybody do that. I am coming to the issues that we want to address. It is very clear that there are actions that could be taken. In the SPICE briefing that I received, there were options available. Various funding sources and the Scottish Land Commission even have a handy table of funding on their website, including for public sector bodies. In summary, local authorities can issue a wasteland notice to a property owner, a leasee or an occupier, requiring them to take specific actions to improve the condition of their building or land. If that responsible person refuses, the local authority can then carry out the work themselves and claim back the cost from the owner under the town and country plan in Scotland Act 1997. I will be happy to give way if there is a lot of interest in that, depending on the time. My intervention is very brief. My colleague asked a question in relation to the examples cited in the motion. Given what Emma Harper has just said, why has the council controlled by your party not done that in the case that was mentioned by my friend? I am not a councillor, so I am laying out what I see as the research that I have done for the last year so that we can help, inform and educate and have people understand that there are actions that can be taken. I would like to continue and proceed. The local authorities can do things such as issue a wasteland notice to the property owner if the responsible person refuses, they can carry out the work themselves, and that is referred to the Town and Country Planning Act 1997. Also, under the Building Scotland Act 2003, councils can issue a dangerous building notice. The local authority or community can, under the Land Reform Act 2003, make a compulsory purchase for a building or land and take action on it. On the owners, I have written to the owners of many derelict sites and I have had one single response. That is disappointing. The Land Commission has recommended that we improve how we identify owners of the vacant derelict sites, such as through a public register, which I would support. I also support the introduction of compulsory sale orders, as recommended by the Scottish Land Commission. I welcome an update from the Government on progress towards bringing forward legislation to enable CSOs. I therefore ask the minister how we can better enable local authorities, such as through the national planning framework number four, to use current legislation to transform our vacant, abandoned and derelict sites. I would ask the minister how can communication with the owners of derelict sites be improved? One of the other common misconceptions that I would like to highlight in dealing with derelict buildings is historic listing. People perceive that no action can be taken on some derelict buildings due to the listed status, whether it is grade B or grade C, for example, for historic or cultural reasons. That is my experience with the former factory in Dumfries. It is a grade B listed site with historical architectural significance. However, local authorities have the ability to seek removal of or change to a current listed status. In effect, they can de-list a property. That process is governed by Historic Environment Scotland, and it is an option that can take eight weeks if there is a strong case to back up the change to the listed status. Local authorities, developers and communities must be more aware of that option so that action on derelict sites occurs. I know that the issue of derelict buildings and sites is really complex, and more time would be needed for me to explain the work that I have done over the past year, as well as some specific examples of contaminated land and the work that I have done with SEPA to assist me as well. I have been working with Heathall Community Council in Dumfries to petition DNG Council to act on the total eyesore that is the interfloor factory site, and that is just the start. In closing, Transformers Scotland's vacant, abandoned and derelict land is a central issue to health, to wellbeing and to community empowerment, and it is vital that we pay attention to that issue, and I look forward to calling those contributions. I now call Finlay Carson to be followed by Colin Smyth for around four minutes. I thank Emma Harper for bringing this debate to the chamber. Deputy Presiding Officer, there is nothing more depressing walking or driving past empty properties in many of our towns and communities that have simply been left neglected and allowed to crumble away over months and years. The problem of tackling abandoned buildings and subsequently derelict land is not, of course, restricted to one region, and I do recognise that it is happening right across the whole of Scotland. However, as we have heard a prime example of this is the George Hattel in Sronra, a once proud-looking building in the heart of a thriving town, it was a popular meeting point for locals and visitors alike. However, when business fell away and the hotel was closed, the building was allowed to—let me get into my speech, thank you—it was allowed to become an absolute eyesore and left to fall apart. After years of neglect and after much pressure, the SNP Labour-led Dumfries and Galloway Council finally bought the hotel in 2017, but I have done nothing with it. That is despite the local authority having, as we have heard from Emma Harper, a strategy and the ability to act on neglected politics. I will be happy to give away. Thank you. I really appreciate you taking an intervention. We agree that the George hotel is a total eyesore, and I think that it is fabulous that we are highlighting this in the debate in the chamber. However, do you agree that action has finally started to be taken to address the building and have the community decide what they want to do with it? I would very much like to agree, but it is far too slow. Absolutely far too slow, and the council has failed in its responsibility to bring it forward. We have a strategy that we have done for Sronra, which is often reviewed, but it has always failed to deliver for our communities. An application has been submitted to see money being made available through the UK Government's levelling up scheme to provide millions of pounds of funding towards the redevelopment and, hopefully, a decision will be forthcoming to give it a new lease of life. Sadly, that is an exception rather than the norm. Indeed, just last week, the windows of another abandoned building in Sronra fell out, forcing the property to be boarded up, and it was lucky that nobody was injured. Clearly, it is fair to say that action is needed to ensure vacant and derelict sites are given a new lease of life quickly and, critically, with a greater pace of engagement with the local community involved. While it is vital that property owners and community groups have the opportunity to consider options for the temporary reuse of vacant and derelict land, the need for consultation cannot be allowed as a way to kick action into the long grass. However, what hope is there for the likes of Sronra with a labour and SNP administration in charge? There are £6 million of ring-fenced money set aside when the ferries moved, but not one penny is spent by this ineffective and dysfunctional administration. Despite Wictonshire overwhelmingly rejecting them in the elections just this year, the electorate is disgusted that a grubby deal between SNP and Labour has allowed them to continue an administration. All of that said, any strategy that looks at addressing the problem of the buildings in land has to be welcomed. Indeed, Dumfrucen Galloway has just recently refreshed his approach. Although the new strategy is not exactly groundbreaking in any shape or form, it cannot fault it for providing a local authority if it acts quicker and responds with renewed energy and urgency rather than sit back and allow buildings to fall into disrepair. On that occasion, action definitely speaks louder than words. Simply talking about what could or should be done doesn't get things done. The SNP and Labour administration have neglected the economic development and planning department now resulting in delays in planning and building control. Those are significant and are a real risk to getting developments off the ground. Although we know that there is a shortage of qualified planners across Scotland, the shortage is being amplified in rural local authorities. We need to see action to get those posts filled in Dumfrucen Galloway and across the rural areas to have a viable planning system that supports the redevelopment of derelict buildings in vacant land rather than slowing it or stopping its reuse. Hopefully, that will allow them to become more engaged and, in particular, identify in those sites that might be suitable for greening, growing, planting or even biological diversity opportunities. The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee passed and, indeed, the Parliament passed new land reform measures to help communities to intervene and prevent derelict buildings from hampering economic sustainability. Those powers are simply not being used or promoted to the extent they could. We must prioritise development in brownfield sites in previously used land, especially for things such as new housing developments across all sectors. Although I would like to see a lot more done to build housing in the low-cost social housing section. In our manifesto, the Scottish Conservatives called for the introduction of compulsory sale orders for long-term unoccupied properties. In many cases, unoccupied and dilipidated, and they are becoming a blight on our communities, which is why we believe that that remains the best course of action. Similarly, the Scottish Conservatives proposed relaxing planning laws to allow for the redevelopment of unoccupied businesses within our town centres into affordable housing, not only when this increased footfall at a tournament place where people go. In conclusion, having a strategy is totally worthless unless it is provided with commitment resources and funding to take seriously the growing problem before it gets totally out of hand. I thank Emma Harper for tabling her motion on an issue that is of deep concern to all our communities. The Parliament's economy committee has just completed our inquiry into town centres and the challenge of vacant and derelict buildings and land was a common thread that ran throughout the evidence that we heard from across the country, reflecting the fact that the problem is increasing and it is not just a historic legacy of our declining industrial base, but also the more recent decline in our town centres. I am pleased that the committee agreed to visit my hometown of Dumfries during that inquiry, seeing for themselves that buildings mentioned in Emma Harper's motion. On the day that she visited a major arterial route through the town, English Street had just been closed off because a derelict long empty, long neglected building had been deemed unsafe. That building was a stark example of the fact that landlords and developers are not queuing up to invest in town centre properties as they are near free for all in out-town developments over the years, coupled with taking and intervention at that point. The building that you mentioned on Treasure Cove on English Street was the only response that I received from the owner and from that we were able to then support and engage with the local authority so that a demolition could proceed with that building. It has been an interesting challenge to have the engagement from the owner of that site, but something has been done now. I think that one of the challenges of that building is that, first of all, it was incredibly challenging for the council to track the owner down. Secondly, with all respect to the owner, there has been years of neglect on that building from an owner who has been absent. All we have achieved so far is to demolish the building, but there is still no sign, sadly, of that building being developed into anything in the near future. I think that it highlights the point that I was making about that, that developers' owners are not queuing up to invest in their town centres. We have seen the rise in out-town developments over the years. We have seen the tide of online shopping becoming a tsunami during Covid. That has taken its toll on the high street that makes properties like that not viable in terms of new developments. There are too many of them and too many empty shops across towns like Dumfries. However, I think that that example exposed the challenges that local council face in taking action against those often absent landlords who allow the properties to fall into such a state of disrepair. I do not think that the powers that they have go far enough. Craig Ellis from South Ayrshire Council planning department in Emma Harper's region told the economy committee during an inquiry that the expectation of the powers is greater than what the powers actually are. If a council wants to undertake work on a building, it needs to show it as a plan for that building, that it is in the public interest and they can afford it. Whether it is an issue in an amenity notice, a defective building notice, a dangerous building notice or compulsory purchase of a property, councils at present often simply do not have the resources either needed to take that action. Finlay Carson raised the issue of planning. Research by the Royal Town Planning Institute for Scotland showed that in June 2021, right across Scotland, budgets for planning services had been reduced by 42 per cent since 2009, and nearly a third of planning staff had been cut. So often, there is not the staff to pursue landlords, especially given the fact that often it ends in the council having to fund repairs on a property at a stage when it has fallen into a state of disrepair. Then try to claim that money back from the owners, which is incredibly challenging. On occasion, results in the council ending up owning the property. That is a concern that I have to say with Emma Harper's motion and the former interfloor factory. There is a little chance, in my view, of the council being successful in claiming back any money that they spend on that building from the current owner. Certainly, the level of investment that would be needed to make a difference. Therefore, the council could end up owning that particular factory. Funding a future purpose for a site that will have had 110 years of industrial pollution is way beyond the resources of a local authority. The scale of the challenge on sites like this means that we need a strategic national approach with government intervention through agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and South of Scotland Enterprise to invest in clearing sites and making them suitable for future use. That does occur at a local level. On occasion, when Finlay Carson mentioned the George hotel, I can tell him, the council bought that hotel. It bought it within a few months of taking over the current administration. After years of the Conservatives doing absolutely nothing, including Mr Carson. It was a council at the time, so the council did take action in buying the George hotel. However, the cost of that modest building and turning it into something that is suitable is enormous. Never mind what the cost would be for a site that is the size of the former interfloor factory in Dumfries. The council needs support to make sure that it can invest in projects, but when the project is the scale of that factory, we need major government intervention to clear those sites and make them fit for purpose. On a positive note, on the visit to Dumfries to Economy, it met a new community benefit company in the mid-stiefel quarter. I will declare an interest as a local resident who is a member of that corpative. The mid-stiefel quarter is taking on the neglect of those absent landlords by taking back our high street shop by shop. Investing in those properties to deliver that mix of use, our towns need not just quality retail space that is suitable and affordable for businesses, but community space and crucially new housing, so we once again have people living in our towns. To support them and others, I think that the Government does need to recognise that the cost of turning derelict townset of properties into, for example, housing will always be more expensive than greenfield sites. Therefore, they need that support in order to make that happen and really start to tackle the blight of derelict properties on our high streets. Presiding Officer, I congratulate my colleague and friend Emma Harper on securing this vital debate tonight on a subject that I am sure everybody in the chamber and indeed everyone across the country can relate to. Derelict sites blight our communities. They impact on public health, and they are not representative of the modern post-industrial Scotland that we are abiding in today. The potential for reusing vacant and derelict sites, also known as empty brownfield to some, is huge. It is difficult to think of a single major area of Scottish public policy that would not benefit from a concerted national effort to bring those sites back into use. Focusing on those sites as a vehicle for delivery could help to enhance policy co-ordination across civic Scotland by concentrating on effort and resources where they are most needed, a tangible example of the place, principle and action. Transforming Scotland's legacy sites requires innovation and technical skills across a variety of professional disciplines from ecologists, demolition teams and architects through to space planners, construction experts and renewable heat engineers. With the right strategic leadership, we could use this opportunity to develop the skills and commercial expertise that Scotland needs to shift to a sustainable growth path and deliver a green recovery. By focusing on vacant and derelict land, we can do that in a way that will help direct resources and support to the parts of the country that need it most, making sure that those left behind by the last chapter in Scotland's economic history are at the forefront of the next. Of course, as a member of the Parliament's NZ Committee, I am interested in climate action. As we know, climate action needs to be a collective endeavour, but barely half of those living in our most deprived communities, those with the highest concentrations of vacant and derelict land, see it as an urgent priority. If we really want to make a climate action a collective priority, then tackling our legacy of vacant and derelict sites is key in getting the climate message through to everyone. Yes, of course. Can I get my time back? I appreciate you taking intervention. Can you set out where the Scottish Government has got it wrong over the last 15 years when you're only suggesting they do something now and in light of the legislation that was passed in the next, the last Parliament? Can remarks be made through the chair, please? Thank you very much, Emma. I've not been here for 15 years. I've been a former councillor and I have been trying to get the derelict sites sorted out, but I'm sure that the minister will be able to speak on his term that he's been here in this Parliament. When you pause and think about it, many of Scotland's derelict sites are part… I'm naked. Yes, of course. I wonder if the member would agree with me that one of the challenges that we face in Scotland over vacant and derelict land is de-industrialisation, which was inflicted upon Scotland in the 1990s. Minister, could you please address your comments to the microphone? By a Government, we didn't elect. Jackie Dunbar. Thank you. Will I sit down again? I thank the minister for that intervention. I agree that there is a lot that needs to be done and a lot that we could actually do that has been foisted upon us since the 1980s and further on from that, but this is not a debate on independence. Like many across the chamber, my Aberdeen-Donside constituency also falls victim to derelict sites, one of which I've been trying to see action on for many years, including as a former ward councillor, the Logie shops on Manard Drive, near the Hardigan roundabout and just off the newly named Brian Adam road, has lain empty for well over 20 years and quite frankly is an eyesore. I've raised the site, which is in derelict condition with Aberdeen City Council and I'm pleased that they've agreed to carry out a renewed safety assessment of the site and I await the outcome. Before anybody stands up, I have contacted Aberdeen City Council before there was an SNP administration and after. I'm taking no prisoners when it comes to who is in administration there. However, I will be urging the local authority to use the powers outlined by Emma Harper MSP to see the size of action taken on the building once and for all. The public sector, including Aberdeen City Council, can lead the way in identifying the potential of those sites to be transformed into assets that provide real benefit to local communities. How great it would be to see something like a community orchard in that place, it's small, it would have a huge benefit, but this could include much needed green space for health and wellbeing, growing spaces, community facilities and housing and business use. I therefore ask the minister for a commitment that the Scottish Government will work with local authorities, as they already do, but continue to do that as much as possible and will provide as much support as they can to see derelict sites in communities across the country addressed. In conclusion, I again congratulate my colleague Emma Harper on bringing this debate forward. Addressing derelict sites, including across Aberdeen Donside, brings numerous benefits, and we must see national action taken to bring about meaningful change. I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, which is a particular challenge in rural communities where a vacant or derelict site can be a long-term eyesore in the heart of the community. I thank my colleague Emma Harper for securing the debate. As the motion rightly notes, in many cases, those sites reflect decades of decline in our communities and symbolise the loss of industry and essential infrastructure. Across the region, I represent the Highlands and Islands, there are 188 registered vacant and derelict sites. They include disused railways in a region crying out for improved public transport, abandoned auction marts and agricultural buildings at a time when land prices make it challenging for new entrants to the agricultural industry, and even family homes at a time when home ownership is increasingly unaffordable. By failing to enable the redevelopment of these sites, and many of them are developable, we are not only wasting the embodied energy in these buildings but squandering an opportunity to improve our communities. Those sites offer tremendous potential if brought back into use by communities to respond to their changing needs. For example, in Gerloch, the community supported by the community housing trust has transformed a derelict site in the centre of the village into 25 homes with a range of tenures and a community hub, which is Scotland's first public passive house building. The award-winning mixed development represents a great model of what is possible for communities across Scotland with the right support and funding and a partnership approach. In Appelcross, residents purchased a vacant site from the NHS Highlands using the community asset transfer process and funding from a range of sources. Now, with the help of the community housing trust, instead of a vacant site, the community has three accessible homes next door to the GP surgery. From April next year, the devolution of powers over non-domestic rates and empty property relief to local authorities could enable local councils to disincentivise absentee landlords who far too often neglect the maintenance and security of vacant and derelict sites as we have heard already. Public bodies need land assembly powers such as compulsory purchase and compulsory sales orders, which are effective, efficient and fair in order to support delivery of much-needed regeneration infrastructure and the reuse of vacant land and property. Currently, implementation of those powers is patchy, with councils being understandably cautious about taking on ownership of sites that are often in very poor condition. Councils should be encouraged by the numerous successful projects across Scotland that have seen vacant and derelict sites taken on and redeveloped by communities. There is a real opportunity for local and national government to build partnerships with charities, co-operatives and membership organisations who often have an inspiring vision for new neighbourhoods that they want to shape. It is also important to note that many councils are willing to exercise purchase powers but do not have community groups with the capacity and confidence to undertake water-significant specialist long-term projects. That is why the Scottish Greens have been making the case for more long-term support, for revenue costs for community organisations and highlighting the importance of key enablers in the sector, including the Scottish Land Fund and Community Housing Trust. That is why the Bute House agreement commits the Scottish Government to doubling the Scottish Land Fund by the end of the parliamentary session to prioritise bringing vacant and derelict land and property back into productive use with rural re-population as a vital objective. Due to the number of members who wish to participate in the debate, including a few, they have been moved to press their buttons since the debate started, and they are minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate for up to 30 minutes. I invite Emma Harper to move that motion without notice. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. With that, I call Audrey Nicholl to be followed by Paul Sweeney for around four minutes. I very much thank Emma Harper for bringing this debate forward this afternoon. I have really enjoyed listening to your very eloquent setting of the scene in your opening speech. It was a great contribution around the challenges and opportunities that derelict and vacant land bring to communities. For my very short contribution today, I want to highlight a scenario in my constituency that, on the face of it, seems like a golden opportunity to transform a derelict site for community benefit, but looking under the surface, it is more challenging. As the daughter of a greengrocer, I am utterly loyal to community wealth-building approaches. Like many colleagues, I am lucky enough to have independent shops, coffee shops, makers, designers, artists and bakeries—you name it. Lots of different invested members of the community bring in character and life to local spaces. What we define as vacant and derelict land can equally make a contribution to that character and life. The Scottish Government and COSLA place principle sits at the heart of addressing the needs and realising the full potential of communities. Places are shaped by the way resources, services and assets are directed and used by the people who live in and infest in them. Aberdeen City, much like the rest of the UK, has a legacy of land contamination, resulting from past industrial use, including the historical oil and gas sector. Having said that, the same energy sector is considered, by some, to have avoided a bigger cohort of derelict and vacant land emerging in the north-east over the years. However, in those circumstances, local authorities are required to remove unacceptable risks to people and the environment and to seek to bring damaged land back into beneficial use. It is on this point that I want to talk about a scenario in my constituency. I have been working with constituents living adjacent to an area of land owned by the local authority, but leased over many years as an industrial site. The oil and gas downturns saw the site vacated and flattened, but the lease remains in place and the site is now contaminated. In recent years, the site has emerged as a natural habitat, hosting a range of animals and bird life. Local residents derive real pleasure from the site. There is a feeling of attachment and wellbeing connected to the space. Bizarrely, the lease holders annual maintenance of the site, which is to be applauded, can remove some of the habitat that is emerging and attracting wildlife into it. However, efforts to date to explore how the status of the site can shift from contaminated land to community asset have proved very difficult and perhaps demonstrate a lack of synergy between the aspirations of community wealth building set against the legislative and policy framework around vacant and derelict land. I welcome the Scottish Land Commission's report on transforming Scotland's approach to vacant and derelict land. I note the recommendation around aligning policy to support delivery. That action should be taken to make it easier to overcome ownership barriers to land reuse. I completely agree with the recommendation. However, in the case of outlined, the issue is made more complex by the least status of the land and I anticipate the understandable hesitation around that status changing. Realistically, that is a really difficult situation for community members to grapple with. I would be interested in the minister's thoughts on that particular scenario and, of course, I would be pleased to engage further down the line on that type of situation. I am very grateful to Emma Harper for bringing that motion forward and I look forward to working further on that issue in my constituency in the future. I thank Emma Harper for bringing that motion for debate in the chamber. It is an issue that I have a strong personal passion for as a trustee of the Glasgow City Heritage Trust and, indeed, Glasgow has been long synonymous with its architectural beauty and the grandeur of its buildings, which make it one of the most handsome urban cityscapes in the world. Indeed, that is a testament to previous generations of enlightened Glaswegians that remain blessed by the legacy of the geniuses of Alexander Greek Thompson, James Miller, John James Burnett and Charles Rennie Macintosh. They were able to flourish in a city like Glasgow, due to a potent combination of inspired patrons, including the city corporation, who understood the enduring value of good design and also designed rules that were devised by the first city architects at John Carrick and ensured that Glasgow followed a rigorous plan driven by the city improvement trust that gave rise to a dense grid of tenement-linked streets that are so fundamental to our city's identity. Whilst we admire and adore the product of this architectural golden age and we need to do everything we can to preserve and protect it today, it is a truth that current planning law would not enable that to be built today. It actually prevents it happening. That is one of the great ironies of the things that we cherish, the communities that we like the most in our city are unable to be replicated because of current planning law. That is a great disappointment that we have not been able to address in NPF4. Indeed, of course, the work of organisations like Glasgow City Heritage Trust is pivotal, which was established 15 years ago in 2007. I am happy to take an intervention. I fed into the national planning frameworks draft strategy, specifically focusing on tackling vacant abandoned derelict land and buildings. Do you agree that we need to continue to look at those issues to make sure that the powers are created in order to tackle what we see are a problem? I absolutely agree with the member. A major part of it is that previous generations had plot-based development rules for planning, so they laid out a city plan and built the city up progressively. Private investment was invited to build it up, and that sequence was planned by the city architect in this instance or the city improvement trust. Many of those developments were sponsored by the city itself. Today, our planning system is fundamentally discretionary. All the basis on which buildings are designed and developed are left in the hands of developers. There is no code of design, no code of how a building should look in relation to the community. There is no code around the materials that should be used. It is very arbitrary, and often it is value engineered to the point of not being very well designed at all. That is a major concern. There are also perverse incentives at the heart of our planning system that drive perverse behaviours. For example, in Glasgow, we have more than 1,800 buildings listed in the city, and of those currently 108 are on the buildings that risk register for Scotland, which is quite a high rate. A major impediment to bringing those buildings at risk that are of architectural and heritage value back into use is the fact that, to do so, it incurs a rate of 20 per cent VAT, but to knock it down and build from scratch incurs 0 per cent VAT. There is perverse incentive, and it is what is known as a conservation deficit, that often militates against bringing potentially fantastic buildings back into use. As described by members this evening, I could rhyme off a whole list of ones in Glasgow, not the least, the springboard winter gardens in the springboard park, which I have been desperately trying to bring back into active use for over 10 years and continue to be frustrated in that goal. However, one of the major impediments is that VAT issue. Also, the conservation deficit, because the most ways to deal with it is to apply for funding, let the national lottery heritage fund or to the regeneration capital grant fund, or to the UK Government levelling up fund, as Glasgow is currently doing for the people's palace. Fundamentally, the problem with those is that it is a lottery and it is always going to be losers in that process. I do not understand why this Government cannot think more laterally about this and say that those buildings have long-term value. How do we measure the value of these restored assets? How do we actually look at the fact that we need to guarantee those buildings as an incredible, irreplaceable and precious part of our built heritage and recognise that simply throwing grants at it on an arbitrary lottery-type basis is not going to work and is not going to be sustainable in the long term? If you take the city heritage trust, its annual budget barely touches the sides of the scale of the problem needed in Glasgow. There are 70,000 tenements in the city that need £3 billion worth of repairs at the rate in which the city heritage trust is funded that would take 2,000 years to do it. We need to seriously up our game in Scotland about how we resource that. A national plan that is not just about throwing money after projects that will not work or be viable, but about providing that initial investment to then, over maybe 100 years, earn it back. It will be council tax revenues, it will be non-domestic rates, it will be rents that will come back into the city or the urban community, it will raise the value of property in the area and re-evigorate communities that are otherwise suffering terribly because a higher proportion of those buildings at risk are in the poorest districts of our towns and cities. In that regard, it is important that the Government considers ways that simply do not extend to grant funding if we deal with the conservation deficit problem in Scotland, because it is a major issue that holds up the potential rejuvenation of thousands of amazing architectural edifices in our cities and towns. Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. I now call Willie Coffey to be followed by Stephen Kerr at around four minutes, Mr Coffey. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you also to my colleague Emma Harper for bringing this matter to the attention of the Parliament. At high time, this problem has aired and solved, as it has been a long-standing and difficult problem to tackle. It has actually come at a good time, since I have also been trying to do some work in this in recent months and years in my constituency of Commander Darren Vally. My own focus is mostly on empty air-abandoned shops, but there are a number of pieces of land that are no better than waste ground. Sadly, there are some sites, too, that are in current use, but have little or no maintenance to keep them in good order, either. We all have particular buildings that are usually empty shops in our cities, towns and villages, Presiding Officer. They are not exactly contributing positively to the look and feel of our towns. Some of them are, in fact, middens—a good Scots word, and I use that word deliberately, because that is what they are. The owners should be ashamed of themselves, but sadly they are not. That is one of the key problems that we have here. As Emma Harper says, they are often owned by individuals or corporations who do not give a jot about their towns and may never even have visited them, uncontactable in hiding behind agents who allegedly manage the properties for them. Some are in local ownership, and it is very difficult to even get hold of them to ask them to take some action, even to clean them up. I recently went on a walk through my own town of Comarnat with two council officials to whom I was very grateful, and we saw many of those examples for ourselves. What became clear was how very little of it fell under the jurisdiction of the local authority. They do have powers to act in members of reference these powers over dangerous buildings and so on, but powers in relation to amenity or dirty, filthy buildings are limited and usually end up costing the public purse when it is the owner's responsibility to act. So where does the answer really lie? I am not convinced, and neither are my council colleagues, that it lies in granting more powers, amenity or otherwise, to the planning authorities. That always seems to end up in legal disputes, especially when we are talking about subjective matters that deal with attractiveness or ugliness. Who would define what that actually means? The owners ultimately usually have no funds or resources available to take any of those actions to remedy the situation. A recent work on developing our national planning framework is going to be a really powerful tool for local communities in taking forward plans to revitalise our towns, to create those community spaces and so on, as we have done successfully in Comarnac already, but I do not think that this problem can be solved by NPF4 and these awful sites will remain to let us all down. Perhaps we need some sort of new thinking, with some kind of clean-up fund or town centre community-bond fund work that asks local traders, and those absentees, if we can ever track them down, to put a small amount of money aside in a voluntary fund or otherwise, and perhaps some public money too, if that was possible, and encourage public nations too. I think that a solution might lie in there to promote a voluntary town centre clean-up fund where everybody can make a contribution. After all, our towns, cities and villages actually belong to the people who live in them, all of their lives, and it is in everyone's interests people, traders, absent owners too, and probably the local authority to work together to be part of the solution to that particular problem. Surely all of the buildings and parcels of land should have a positive purpose and make a real contribution to the vitality of our towns. I have a time to take Mr Sweeney briefly. I am just coming to the end anyway, but please do hear me out to say. I thank the member for his speech so far in the debate. I think that it has been a really interesting speech. Would he recognise that perhaps our solution to the problem that he describes might be a heritage levy on new development areas such as conservation areas, which would help to contribute to the common good. The solution that is identified by the built environment from Scotland is to have common sinking funds for residential and commercial properties, so that common repairs are well funded in advance. It is not simply a reactive thing, where a massive amount of money has to be spent suddenly in reaction to a failure of a building or a structure. Willie Coff, I think that there are all potential good ideas. Some of the themes that we talked about with council officials is to engage with their reaction to something that might be about getting some kind of advanced funding. Poets put away, set aside, for those kinds of purposes might work, so hopefully some provision might come to that. Just as I was winding up, all our buildings in parcels of land need to have a positive purpose and make a real contribution to the vitality of all our towns. I hope that that has given the minister and, hopefully, some of the members some food for thought too. I thank once again Emma Harper again for bringing the issue to our attention and sincerely hope that we can make some real progress on it in the coming years, our cities, towns and villages deserve nothing less. Thank you, Mr Coffey. I call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Bob Dorris around four minutes. I doubt you are starting to be listening to many speeches on the SNP benches. You would hardly imagine that you have been in power for 15 years. Those are not problems that have arrived in the last few weeks or months. Those are problems that we have been dealing with and living with in Scotland for a long time. After 15 years in power, Emma Harper has highlighted the inadequacies of our own Government, because she also highlights the powers that local authorities have got and don't have, and therefore there is a role here for the Scottish Government. I think that Paul Swinney gave a marvellous speech in highlighting the need for the Government to be more imaginative and more flexible in how they deal with those things. I am delighted to hear that there is a Brian Adam road. I was astonished, but not entirely surprised, must be asked to hear the minister say that the person to blame for all of the problems that we are talking about in this debate is Mrs Thatcher. My goodness me, how predictable and how lame was that? We live in one of the most beautiful countries in the world. In fact, we regularly in Scotland are acclaimed as the most beautiful country in the world. Our landscape is something that makes all of us feel proud. Something inside of us warms up when we see the beautiful scenes that our country is renowned for around the world. As parliamentarians, I believe that we have been appointed by our fellow Scots to be guardians of Scotland's natural beauty, and just as previous generations have preserved our nation's landscape so that we could enjoy it, we also have a responsibility to conserve the beauty of our built environment so future generations can enjoy it as well. But let's not be kidding ourselves. When we talk about the beauty of Scotland, let's not be kidding ourselves. Every fibre of Scotland is not beautiful, I wish I could say it was, and has been mentioned in the speeches that have already been delivered. There are many parts of our country where land is not only unused, but it's an eyesore, and failure to address the problem is nothing short of a levelling down approach. There is such a thing as entropy, it's real, and the kind of neglect from public bodies, agencies and councils, as well as owners, comes from an uncaring attitude that says to people that their environment, their lives, their wellbeing is less important than others. The way that many places in central Scotland have been neglected is Scotland's shame, where policy makers who live in nice pleasant suburban areas are happy to leave their fellow Scots in the worst kind of squala. Rather than accepting the status quo, the Scottish Government should be embracing a true levelling up agenda, empowering people, empowering authorities, building buildings that are the complement to our country's natural beauty, and is already known. We don't have enough houses in Scotland, and for far too long we've not been building enough homes. Councils and Governments take too long selling off unused land. There's a whole register of land that is in public sector that could be usefully utilised to build more homes. Having been declared surplus of requirements by councils, buildings, as we've already mentioned in this debate, take far too long to sell. We have not been imaginative enough, for example, to adapt buildings on our high streets to accommodate housing. Why do we just keep talking about this without doing something about it? Colin Smyth. Does Mr Kerr not accept that the point is making it very valid, but one of the disincentives when it comes to investing in regenerating a building in a town centre, say for housing, is the fact that the level of VAT that is levied on existing buildings is actually higher than the VAT level on a new build of towns. That's a perverse disincentive to tackle the problem of housing. Maybe he can have a word with his party to see if we can address that and reduce the level of VAT on regenerating existing buildings to the same level as on new builds. Stephen Kerr. I'm happy to address any of the perversal logicalities that exist around the need for us to take action on the areas that I'm highlighting and other members who have highlighted in this debate. If I make one phrase, it is a collection that one might call the anti-growth coalition, the people that are stopping these things from happening. We cannot just champion more housing, by the way. We must build housing, and I think that Paul Sweeney touched on this, but we must build more housing that promotes community rather than living inside our own bubble, which is happening too often, in what we used to have as communities in a country that was proud of its sense of community and should be proud of its sense of community. We must champion energy-efficient housing, so those buildings serve us for generations to come, and we must champion the right type of housing. We must champion beautiful houses that people want to live in, in beautiful neighbourhoods. Beauty should be at the heart of public discourse. It should be part of our conversation about housing and development and spaces. As the great philosopher Roger Struthan put it, we are losing beauty and there is a danger that we will lose the meaning of life. I close with the words of a friend of mine, Sir John Hayes, not of this parish but of the House of Commons, someone whose ideas are driven by an inordinate sense of common sense. He said, sadly we live in an age that is dull and utilitarian and which mystery and magic are extraordinarily unfashionable. It is odd that that should be, for it was not true for most of our history and has not been so for most great civilisations. It is unusual to be as utilitarian as we are, but now it is time for a change, for a renaissance. It is time for beauty to be put back at the heart of government policy, and Sir John Hayes is right, and we can start by tackling the dereliction that we see all too much of around us. We have extended the debate by half an hour, but we are at risk of going beyond that, if we are not careful. I will call Bob Doris for up to four minutes, please. I thank Emma Harper for bringing this debate forward to allow us to talk about issues with vacant and derelict land in our communities and neglected in the banded buildings as well. It has come quite strongly within the debate. There are blights in our communities, and I was motivated to make this unscheduled contribution because of my experience as the constituency MSP for Maryhill and Springburn. Let's start off by talking about when MSPs go and talk to local authorities about buildings that were unsafe. In my case, I could pick several examples, but I will talk about the Maryhill tavern and the redan building on Maryhill road, unsafe and eyesores, and a talisman now, thankfully, demolished in Springburn. When MSPs go to local authorities, they look to see whether it is structurally safe, i.e. will it fall down, will bits continue to fall off the building, not whether it is accessible to kids and reasonable mitigation put in place to stop kids getting in there or that it is a blight in the urban landscape of our communities. Maybe we have to look a little bit again at what we deem to be safe and acceptable for communities. I think that is something that I wanted to put on the record. I want to say a little bit about compulsory purchase orders. It is clearly easier to secure those if there is a strategic plan for the use of the land or for the building that the land sits on. Preferably, a community-led strategic plan has happened in relation to the talisman, which is now demolished. I will declare an interest because that community plan was in part formed by the Springburn Regeneration Forum, which I was co-founder of and the Spirit of Springburn, which I am a trustee of. However, I take no credit for that achievement because I facilitated others in the community to get a share in the community to deliver recommendations to say that talisman I saw that that derelict pub must go. The local authority moved for a compulsory purchase order and the owner suddenly thought that I would get the site to demolish myself rather than face the threat of compulsory purchase orders. There is a positive impact. Only if I can get the town back, Mr Sweeney, I am sorry. Very briefly, Mr Sweeney. I thank the member for his contribution, but he also recognised that, in the case of 10 years ago, since the demolition of Springburn public halls, one of the major concerns in the city is also the buildings in council ownership that remain derelict and blighting the area, including Springburn. Bob Doris? I am absolutely happy to acknowledge that. It transcends all political persuasions in local government across a long period of time, Mr Sweeney. A little bit of the compulsory purchase orders in relation to Mary El Tavir and the redan buildings on Neary Hill Road, they are now going to happen to allow us to connect with regional and national work in Cymun Street, Barysdale Street and Lindale Street, which I have been lying empty on Wasteland for far too long, is part of a long-term transformational regeneration area approach. A lot of good things happening, but it takes time planned and careful consideration and massive investment by Glasgow City Council, by the Scottish Government and we are hearing some levering up funds may go to contribute towards that as well as things do happen. I would also like to mention where things have happened. In Royston there is a new community hub, which includes a wonderful new community centre and food pantry with money from the Scottish land fund from Glasgow City Council and from the Scottish Capital Regeneration Fund and a previous derelict triangle site in Royston where we got significant amounts of money again from the land fund and from the Scottish Government to have a park on the hill, previously blights and eyesores. I would also like to say that we have to look at this in connection with how we use green space. I declare another interest because next to me at Black Hill Road there was a massive development on green space and I stay next by, so I have a direct interest for up to 1,000 properties to be built there. If you offer private developers an opportunity to build 1,000 properties on green space, guess what? They are not going to invest in the brownfield vacant and derelict land sites. I am glad that we put an end to that potential development. I think that this has been an incredibly constructive debate, although I do think that Mr Kerr and Mr Carson let themselves down a bit because this was never tribal, this was never party political, this is coming together as a Parliament to do what we can to improve the community that will serve. I think that those two members of this Parliament let themselves down a bit in this afternoon's debate. I now call on Tom Arthur to respond to the debate, Minister, for seven minutes or so. I register the tone of your voice in underscoring seven minutes. Seven minutes is certainly far too short to do justice in responding to what I think has been an excellent debate, with a range of interesting contributions from all members. I very much value it and I give you an undertaking that I will reflect carefully on the comments that have been made and engaged with my officials and other stakeholders on these points. Let me begin by thanking Emma Harper for bringing this debate to Parliament and affording us this opportunity. I am also recognising the work of the vacant and direct land task force, which is playing an important role. I think that not just in informing this debate that we have had but indeed in informing the work that the Government is taking forward. I think that just to outline the outset, there is a broad range of work that the Scottish Government is undertaking. We have recently published our revised draft of the national planning framework 4, which seeks to really get us back, making it very fundamentally to a plan-led system, particularly around housing, but I would note policies on green belt and on a brownfield vacant and direct land and empty buildings, which I think align with much of what members have spoken about. As well as what we are doing around planning policy, we are also working to ensure that we have a planning system that is properly resourced. That is a challenge that we all recognise, not just in terms of fiscal resource but ensuring that we have a sufficient number of planners. I would add that the number of the challenge around recruitment of planners is not unique to Scotland, but with regard to the action that we are taking here. We are working very closely with the high-level group, with partners such as RTPI, Heads of Planning Scotland and the Improvement Service. We have published a future planner project and we are working to implement that. I am also having constructive engagement with the private sector as well. We can do more work to promote people into planning, because planning, as a profession, I would want to reiterate, as I said in front of the committee earlier this month, is a wonderful profession to go into for any young person and affords people an opportunity to play a really key role in shaping their place needs. However, it is not just policy. We are backing it up with funding as well. We have a place-based investment programme, which includes the regeneration capital grant fund, which goes back to 2013. With PBib over the course of this Parliament, that is £325 million of capital investment, which is making a difference. We have also launched this in this parliamentary session, the vacant and debit land improvement programme, which is £50 million over the course of this Parliament. I was delighted to be at Clyde Gateway a few weeks back to attend the official opening of the first project completed following funding through the vacant and debit land improvement programme. That is an important resource, because we recognise, given our industrial heritage, that there can be significant challenges around decontamination and remediation of land. That can play an important part in de-risking and delivering an investment from the other sectors. Does he recognise that Clyde Gateway is an interesting model? Unique in Scotland is the only public development corporation left in the country. Perhaps it is a model that could be emulated at a grander scale for Glasgow as a whole, perhaps at a national level as well, to bring these distressed assets back into use? I recognise very much what the member said. I have been incredibly impressed with what I have seen at Clyde Gateway and particularly what I could describe as a bold and almost entrepreneurial spirit in terms of their vision for the area. I think that there is certainly something in Mr Swinney's remarks about how that model can potentially play a bigger role if not being replicated in at least a culture and vision in attitude and forming more of how the public sector as a whole engages in projects of long-term redevelopment. Emma Harper asked how we can use current legislation to effectively deal with VDL. A number of members raised the issue of compulsory purchase orders and the possibility of compulsory sales orders. Through our delivery programme with regard to NPF4, it is a commitment that we are going to look at how we can update legislation on CPO and, within that programme of work, look at the introduction of CSO. As members will appreciate, that is an extremely complex area. It requires careful consideration, but it is something that I recognise as a keen interest in and, indeed, where we do have existing CPO provisions, I recognise that there is criticism that they are somewhat dated, challenging to use and as such it warrants careful consideration around how we can update those powers to ensure that all of our local authorities and are equipped with the legislative tools that are required to affect the outcomes that we want to see. There was a point that Mr Carson touched on in regard to permitted development rights for residential conversions. We have recently concluded a consultation on permitted development rights that covers a range of areas, including youth class orders responding to some of the recommendations from the town centre review. We will be publishing the outcome of that consultation and our decisions in what legislative action we are going to take shortly. However, I stress that, on the issue of permitted development rights for residential, that is not something that I am minded to pursue simply because, given the significance of housing and its importance, it still has to exist within the planning system. A number of members raised mid-stiple quarters. I was delighted to visit mid-stiple earlier in the year. I am delighted that the Scottish Government has been able to support that through the place-based investment programme and, indeed, the empowering communities programme. It is a great example of a community taking ownership and driving forward change, as Mr Smith said, shot by shot to take back the high street. That fundamentally touches on a broader point, which is that of community wealth building, which is fundamentally the destination for me that represents a maturation of our process of redevelopment and regeneration building on the place principle. Ultimately, all of the challenges that we face within our high streets and with vacant and derelict land are a reflection of the underlying economic model, and often that has been one of wealth extraction, where owners of premises are not situated within their localities and, in such, do not have a stake. One of the key pillars of community wealth building is land and property, and I personally want to see more and more people being able to take, in communities, ownership of those assets. That is a key ambition that we have, and we have an opportunity to consider that in further detail tomorrow. On a Government debate, I will be leading on asset transfer requests. Audrey Nicholl had raised a number of issues in her remarks, and I would like to say that I would be more than happy to meet to discuss the specific details that she raised. Paul Sweeney, I recognise his long-standing passion for this area. I think that it was a fascinating and actually quite provocative speech. One of the tensions that I was wrestling with was, in my mind, the grandeur of Glasgow was of an era before we had a statutory planning system. It was in the era of permissive regulation, maybe the 1909 act or the 1929 act. I think that there was a 34 act. Equally, I was reflecting on it. That was an age when we also saw some of the most terrible and appalling housing conditions, which was certainly a prompt for the development of the modern planning system in 1947, on its origins to public health concerns. I think that he raises some interesting points around design, and looking at existing design codes nationally, something that we will be doing as part of the delivery programme for NPF4. I am conscious that time is against me, and the debate has already been extended. I just thank all members for their contributions again, and I particularly thank Emma Harper for bringing this debate to the chamber. Thank you very much. Minister, that concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament.