 Mae'r next item of business is the debate on motion 3985 in the name of Arianne Burgess on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee on national planning framework 4. In the unexplained absence of the convener, I call on the deputy convener, Willie Coffey, to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee for around eight minutes, Mr Coffey. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thought I was closing the debate, so this is a closing speech, as I'm sure members will say in here. I'll move the motion, my name, Presiding Officer, before I forget. I'm very pleased to be opening this important debate on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee. Firstly, I thank the committee members for their contribution during the process and to our clerking team for their help and much-valued guidance along the way. From my perspective, this debate has been immensely constructive and I hope that it's been helpful in shaping the final version of NPF4 and a planning system and culture well suited to delivering on its ambitions. Before reflecting on some of the contributions to this afternoon's debate that I'm about to hear, I wanted to highlight some of the other key conclusions of a report that hasn't been covered by the convener in her opening remarks. Firstly, I wanted to say a few words, members, about the concept of the 20-minute neighbourhoods, which is a key part of NPF4 that members will agree and recognise. The committee welcomed the 20-minute neighbourhoods and we know it. Mr Coffey, could I just perhaps pause you there? It is not a reflection on your remarks, but I don't think that this is reflecting particularly well on the chamber, so I think I'm going to suspend business for a brief period until we establish where the convener is and we can recommend the debate, but thank you very much indeed for your attempt to allow us to stay on track. Thank you very much. Okay, the second time I was asking the next item of business is a debate on motion 3985 in the name of Ariane Burgess on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee on national planning framework. Four, I would invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press the request speak button so that they are in the chat function now or as soon as possible. I would call on Ariane Burgess to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee, but make absolutely clear how seriously I take the discourtesy to this chamber of the convener not being present for the start of the debate. Ms Burgess, for around eight minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and apologies for my delay. The committee is very pleased to have this opportunity today to debate the draft of the fourth national planning framework. MPF4 sets out the Scottish Government strategy for Scotland's long-term development and guides decisions on every application for planning permission submitted in Scotland. It sets out how places and environments will be planned and designed for years to come. MPF4 will be of particular importance in ensuring that we make planning decisions that respond effectively to the climate and biodiversity emergencies. Planning affects so many different aspects of our lives, from where we live to where we work, to where we go to school, to job opportunities and to our health and wellbeing, to name just a few. Given the huge breadth of impact planning has, I am very pleased that the Health, Social Care and Sports Committee, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee have all considered the draft MPF4 2 and are all contributing to this debate today. I also want to thank all those groups who informed both our formal and informal sessions. Your contributions were immensely helpful to us. There is a lot resting on the success of MPF4, and it is essential that we get it right. As a committee members, we all agreed that there is a lot about the draft MPF4 that the Scottish Government has got right. The committee certainly welcomes the ambition of the draft MPF4. However, there are ways in which we think that both MPF4 and the current planning system could be improved to better deliver those laudable ambitions. Perhaps the greatest concern to the committee is the capacity of planning departments to deliver on MPF4. We were told by stakeholders that planning departments in Scotland have collectively experienced 42 per cent cuts in real terms since 2009. Having properly resourced planning departments will be essential to the success of MPF4. We were told by a number of stakeholders that there was a need for 700 new planners over the next 10 to 15 years, given the loss of planners from cuts and the ageing profile of the current workforce. The committee welcomes the minister's recognition of this very significant obstacle to the success of MPF4. The committee welcomes to the minister's commitment to exploring the potential for full-cost recovery as a means to better fund planning departments. However, given the current state of local authority planning departments, it is debatable whether, even with full-cost recovery, local authority planning departments will have the resources to move towards the kind of public-led planning that the committee considers is necessary to realise the ambitions of MPF4. At the very least, it will be key that any funding coming to local authorities from full-cost recovery is retained by planning departments. MPF4 requires a very different kind of approach to planning, so increased numbers of planners will not, in and of itself, affect change in how we make planning decisions in Scotland. Both current and new planners must be given the training and skills to work in this new environment. Moreover, for planners to deliver on the ambitions in a clear and consistent way, they need to be clear on how to apply the MPF4's priorities. In some cases, planners told us that MPF4 did not give them that clarity. Several witnesses asked for clarity on how developers and decision makers should balance or prioritise the four priorities set out in the national spatial strategy. The six spatial principles, the development priorities set out in the five action areas and individual planning policies. We understand that it is for decision makers to make an informed judgment on a case-by-case basis, but the committee believes that greater clarity on priorities is required if the ambitions of MPF4 are to be delivered in a coherent and consistent way. We would welcome ministers' reflections today on what more could be done to provide decision makers with that clarity and certainty that they are seeking. The committee also considers that more clarity and certainty is needed in the choice of language in some cases to support the delivery of the ambitions of the MPF4. Several witnesses raised concerns about a lack of ... Yes. Grim Simpson. I thank Ariane Burgess for taking the intervention. When she calls for more clarity, does she agree with me that large chunks of the draft document need to be rewritten? Ariane Burgess. Thank you for that. I don't think that necessarily large chunks need to be written, but I do think that there does need to be greater clarity to deliver the ambitions. I will continue on to say that several witnesses raised concerns about the lack of clarity and certainty for decision makers in the wording of some of the policies, highlighting the use of words such as should or supported rather than must or approved. I think that there are ways that the Government can find that wording that absolutely stresses that clarity in this changed planning landscape. MPF4 should be accessible and a usable document, and it is of concern to us that there is uncertainty about the meaning of terms and words. It is particularly concerning that those issues are being highlighted to the committee by people very familiar with the planning system. We would welcome the minister's further reflections today on the comments made to the committee about the language used in MPF4, as well as his thoughts on how to create greater clarity and certainty. As I said at the beginning of the speech, a key focus of MPF4 must be the climate and biodiversity emergency. The committee wholeheartedly supports the prominence given to both the climate and biodiversity emergency in MPF4. It is essential, though, that this prominence is reflected in planning decisions. That will require significant change in approach for the planning system. It would be good to hear more from the minister today as to how planners will be supported to drive that change and balance it against competing priorities. As a committee, we agreed that for MPF4 to be successful, there needs to be a public-led planning system. For that to happen, we need to have informed and engaged communities all across Scotland. We would welcome the minister's reflection on what more can be done to ensure that communities are supported to engage in shaping the places where they live, particularly communities from more disadvantaged areas. We would also welcome the minister's thoughts on what more can be done to alleviate consultation fatigue. In particular, what can we do to ensure that consultation is undertaken timuously and communities are involved in a collaborative rather than solely in a consultative manner? MPF4 is a long-term plan, and we need to be able to check on a regular basis that it is delivering on its ambitions and affecting change in Scotland's communities. We need to properly monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of MPF4 and how it is being delivered by local communities. We would welcome a commitment from the minister to producing an annual evaluation of MPF4 against the outcomes that were set out in the town and country planning at Scotland Act 1997. We would also welcome minister's reflections on how benchmarking in local government could be used to ensure that the ambitions of MPF4 can be delivered. We asked the Scottish Government to take on board the issues that I have set out today, as well as those that are already set out in the contributions from my committee and other committees as it develops a final version of MPF4. When it comes to scrutinising that final version, the committee remains concerned that it will not have sufficient opportunity to do so. It is conceivable that a final version will be materially different from the draft version. The committee welcomes the minister's commitment to appear before it on the final version of MPF4. The committee would welcome an assurance today from the minister that sufficient time will be allowed to the committee to undertake thorough scrutiny before the Parliament is about to improve it. I look forward to hearing the rest of the contributions in this debate and I move the motion in my name on behalf of the committee. I can advise the chamber that, as a result of the delayed start to the debate, we now have no more time in hand, so speeches will have to be two-time and interventions incorporated in those speeches. I call on Gillian Martin to speak on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for up to six minutes, please, Ms Martin. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important cross-committee debate on the national planning framework for the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee to take evidence in MPF4 in late January. Our specific focus was to consider its contribution towards improving health and wellbeing. For understandable reasons, MPF4 has an overarching strategic focus on climate and nature, making sure that planning policy contributes positively to tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. However, witnesses, given evidence to our committee, argued that improving health and wellbeing and reducing health inequalities are equally important strategic priorities for planning policy. We face many health-related challenges where planning policy can make a real difference. Tackling obesity, for instance, where too much access to unhealthy fast foods in local communities makes matters worse, and where improving local availability and affordability of healthy, high-quality food would vastly improve the situation. I am grateful to Gillian Martin for taking that intervention. I notice that the Scottish Sport Association has argued that, along with the proposed assessment on greenhouse gas emissions and the assessment on the impact to sport physical activity of any proposed planning development should be in there. Is that something that the committee considered? We did not have that directly in evidence, but I would be interested to look at what they have said, because that is part of the wellbeing aspect to MPF4. That is an important point that has been made. Increased availability of gambling outlets in local high streets, particularly more deprived communities, can have a detrimental impact on mental health. When taking planning decisions, we need to take those wider impacts on health and wellbeing properly into account. To ensure that the health implications of individual planning decisions are more carefully considered, we have requested improved guidance for planning authorities, and robust processes for the elected members when making decisions on health grounds. Ultimately, if we are serious about making improved health and wellbeing a core objective of MPF4, we need to look at ways of making potential impacts on health and wellbeing a material consideration in determining future planning applications where those impacts are likely to be significant, because that is not the case at the moment. We welcome MPF4's ambition that future places could be designed for lifelong health and wellbeing. We also welcome the national spatial strategies vision that our future places, homes and neighbourhoods will be better, healthier and more vibrant places to live, and I guess that that speaks to what Alex Rowley intervened on me with. The special planning, health and wellbeing collaborative group have recently produced a set of place and wellbeing outcomes. Winters has told our committee that those place and wellbeing outcomes describe what every place needs for everyone in them to thrive. In recent years, many low-density housing developments spring up on the edge of Scottish towns. Those could be very car-reliant and limited public transport provision, and those trends could risk storing up physical and mental health problems for the future. That is why it is so important that we make health and wellbeing a strategic priority for MPF4 and an equal footing with climate and nature. Otherwise, we will not meet the ambition that our future places, homes and neighbourhoods are better, healthier and more vibrant places to live. Our committee welcomes efforts to promote the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods and the health and wellbeing benefits that they could bring. At the same time, we need to be clearer about the objectives that underlies that concept. Witnesses, giving evidence to our committee, argued strongly for a flexible approach that recognises a huge variation in different communities in neighbourhoods across Scotland, not least in rural communities. In essence, the 20-minute neighbourhoods are about improving quality of access to key local services. That is a concept that could be applied equally to neighbourhoods in central Aberdeen, Dundee or Glasgow, as well as rural parts of Aberdeenshire and Highlands and the Borders. Dr Matt Louther from Public Health Scotland told our committee, that we should not get too hung up on the 20-minute aspect of things. I also want to draw attention to the pivotal role played by health and care partnerships, territorial health boards and the third sector in contributing to effective strategic planning of future health and care service provision. That role needs to be more prominently recognised in MPF4. To be confident that we continue to have local health and care services that our local communities want and need, we need to involve those parties as strategic partners from the very outset of the preparation of any new local development plan. As I have already mentioned, MPF4 can play a critical role in improving our future health and wellbeing, but it has an equally important role to play in addressing and tackling health inequalities. We have a planning policy that is genuinely responsive to the needs of different population groups, including those living in poverty or suffering from other types of disadvantage, or those who have been at the brunt of very bad planning decisions in the past. We would advocate the wider use of health and equality impact assessments and give our local decision makers the tools to implement them, as I have already said. In less than a month's time, we will have elections across our 32 local authorities, and local councillors and council officers will have a crucial role in making MPF4 work in practice. We have also recommended that the Scottish Government works with COSLA to develop and deliver a comprehensive programme of training for new councillors and council officials across Scotland. MPF4 offers an important opportunity to put health and wellbeing at the heart of future planning policy, and we should seize that opportunity and do what we can to make that ambition a reality. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Martin. I call on Finlay Carson to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee again for up to six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Many will say that I don't often have a leg to stand on, and today I absolutely only literally have one leg to stand on, so it will give me an incentive to canter through this, so I can sit down, but we have permission and we have to revert to my seat. Thank you. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, and to support my committee scrutiny of the draft 4th national planning framework, we held an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands and the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth on 9 February, and two of our members also contributed to the wider stakeholder engagement sessions hosted by Scottish Rural Action and Rural House in Scotland. We are grateful to those organisations for their insights and expertise. In our written responses to the Scottish Government, we highlighted five key areas where we consider the framework could be strengthened to support rural communities. Those include the role that the communities play in the framework, the overall vision for rural communities set out in the framework, how the action areas in the frameworks are defined, how the MPF4 relates to other policies and strategy, and the lack of detail in the MPF4. I want to begin this afternoon by focusing on how we engage constructively with communities to inform how we make planning decisions. As we heard from one stakeholder at the engagement sessions, community engagement should be the golden thread running through MPF4, and my committee shared that view. We concluded that the role of communities, particularly those in more rural areas, should be expressed more explicitly in the framework. We also proposed that MPF4 should establish a formal mechanism whereby the views of communities are heard in planning decisions and the needs of those communities are central to the decision making. My committee also called for the framework to have greater clarity of vision to adequately support Scotland's most vulnerable communities. We only need to look at the recently published national island plan annual review to see the stark downturn in population in some of our island communities. At the stakeholder event, colleagues heard about the central role housing plays in supporting rural repopulation. Having timely, adequate and affordable housing is key to retaining and attracting people to our communities. The Scottish Land Commission made a number of proposals on how land market reform and land use planning could help to deliver more affordable homes supporting repopulation. Perhaps the most important finding in the research on land for rural housing was that, with large house builders mainly inactive in rural Scotland, if new homes are to be built, then other developers such as community bodies and small and medium enterprises will absolutely need to have a role in developing those new houses. The committee also raised concerns that the action areas in the draft MPF4 are not well defined. The north and west coastal innovation area, for example, is made up of communities that are very different, particularly in terms of population and size, and therefore have very different needs. That highlighted concern that island communities were simply not well represented in the draft MPF4, and it needs to devote some attention to the needs of those communities, specifically rather than, as they exist to do within the defined action areas. When the action areas were explored in the community's evidence session with the cabinet secretary and minister, it was stated that these actions are indicative and very much open for comment. That flexibility in how the action areas were viewed is welcomed by the committee and other less considered that that needed to be better reflected in the plan itself. The committee also considered the relationship between MPF4 and some wider policies and strategies that could be more explicit, and MPF4 could elaborate on how conflicts between them are dealt with. For example, transport policies such as the STPR review and the just transition have a relationship with MPF4, but the way in which the act is not clear. Those are policies that have a significant impact on rural communities, and so the committee would welcome clarity on their interconnectedness in the final version. Although the committee appreciates the cabinet secretary's assurances that, while it may not be explicit, neither the draft MPF4 or related strategies are considered in isolation, it also considers that the lack of direct reference to certain strategies does not leave a lack of clarity about how those matters interrelate. The committee also considered the relationship between MPF4 and the Good Food Nations Scotland Bill, and in particular the need for people in urban areas to have access to food-growing areas. Stakeholders included the obesity act in Scotland, and they set out written evidence the importance of the food environment and the role of the MPF4 in that regard. The committee considers the MPF4 to be significant in ensuring the Good Food Nations Scotland Bill can meet its aims. Finally, the lack of detail in the draft MPF4 was something that the committee also explored in evidence. The minister emphasised that MPF4 was not intended to be prescriptive in order to allow flexibility in the planning system. While recognising that argument, the committee once again felt that there are areas where further detail is required. For example, as I have already mentioned, there are issues in relation to rural housing that need to be addressed, such as the lack of affordable housing in rural areas, pricing young people out of the market, the lack of housing more generally preventing rural communities from being able to attract new residents, inability to succession of planning farms due to housing constraints and often substandard housing for agriculture workers more generally. The current lack of detail in the plan does not make it clear how those issues will be addressed. The committee therefore considers that something more prescriptive is required for planners. That view is supported by the heads of planning Scotland, who stated in the written submission that draft MPF4 contained too many goods and shoulds rather than directing change. That suggests that planning officers recognise the need for clearer guidance. In summary, MPF4 has the potential to deliver better support for rural communities in Scotland, but my committee considers that it would benefit from clearer vision for those communities. Those communities need to be more involved in the planning process and the policies to support rural communities need to be well-defined and work coherently together. Thank you, Mr Carson. I now call on Dean Lockhart to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee again for up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. The fourth national planning framework impacts on a number of policy areas that will be vital to meet Scotland's Net Zero ambitions. On behalf of the committee, I place on record our thanks to everyone who has supported the parliamentary scrutiny of the draft framework, in particular the local government, housing and planning committee for leading scrutiny of the framework across Parliament and across portfolio areas and committees. I now turn to some of the key recommendations of the Net Zero Committee, which were based on the evidence sessions we held. At the outset, it is important to recognise that NPA4 demonstrates the necessary levels of ambition and takes a comprehensive approach to address a multitude of policy issues, so far so good. However, as other members have highlighted, there are a number of weaknesses in the draft framework that need to be addressed. First of all, the need for greater clarity. On the face of it, NPA4 appears to recognise that the climate emergency, the nature crisis and the need for sustainable development are first considerations in a hierarchy of spatial planning interests. While that ambition is welcome, stakeholders have called for greater clarity on what that means in practice, on how planners are to use the framework to make decisions on the ground and on how competing priorities are to be treated. Stakeholders also found the language used in the draft to be unhelpfully vague. Some thought that that could fail to sufficiently protect planners and their decisions. The Scottish Government has received a significant volume of written evidence, which addresses many of those concerns. We hope that, when we see the final framework, a number of those concerns will be addressed. A further key theme that has already been mentioned in the evidence that we heard was the critical role that local government must play in delivering net zero targets. Stakeholders were unanimous in their concern, however, that local authorities do not have the necessary resources, budget or expertise to deliver on national targets. One particular area of concern is the depletion of resources and specialist skills within council planning departments and within environmental departments. We have already heard from the convener of the local government committee that the Royal Town Planning Institute has highlighted a 32 per cent reduction in planning department staff over the past 12 years, which has left planning departments critically short of the necessary resource at a time when the demand on their resource is growing exponentially. We also heard from Scottish Renewables that planning applications can take so long that, by the time that a decision is reached, the relevant turbine technology is obsolete. Surely that is a massive concern. Those concerns were also recognised by the Climate Change Committee, which is called on the Scottish Government to ensure that adequate support is provided to allow for robust implementation of the framework, including the necessary guidance, training and resource, to ensure that the necessary capacity and expertise is in place. So there are real concerns. There is consensus, which we have heard already, that the necessary planning capacity and resource is not available. One recommendation that the net zero committee heard to address the potential bottlenecks that planning may represent going forward is for the Scottish Government to classify planning resource as a STEM subject in order to prioritise the necessary skills in this area and attract more young people into what is and should be viewed as a very interesting career going forward with massive opportunities given the policy priorities in this area. The Committee on Climate Change has also commented on the framework as being vision heavy and delivery light. I want to say that it is unclear how the Scottish Government will ensure compliance with NPF4. The net zero committee received consistent messages from stakeholders on this area, on the importance of data collection, measurement and monitoring. We have heard already that the framework contains a number of references to mitigating, to reducing, to enhancing but with little guidance on how those measures will be managed. So that again was an area that we highlighted to the lead committee, the need for data collection, measurement and monitoring of these policy areas to ensure that NPF4 is capable of being measured and managed on a meaningful basis. On the question of implementation and delivery, I understand—the minister can correct me if I'm wrong—that with the final draft of NPF4, the Scottish Government will also lay a delivery plan before Parliament. I hope that the committees of this Parliament will have the opportunity to consider this delivery plan as part of our scrutiny of the framework. There is consensus across the chamber on the vital importance of meeting Scotland's climate change emission reduction targets for 2030 and for 2045. Those are, quite rightly, very ambitious targets. For those targets to be met, we will need to see an unparalleled level of private finance being invested across the board, including in the retrofitting of buildings and the decarbonisation of heat. I remind her that this will involve the retrofitting and decarbonisation of over a million domestic dwellings in Scotland and some 50,000 business premises by 2030, with an estimated cost of £36 billion. Just this morning, the net zero committee heard evidence from private finance providers that this level of investment is available, but will only be forthcoming if government policy is clear, joined up and is supported with the capacity and resources to deliver on the ground. As things currently stand, much more work is required in order for the framework to meet those vital criteria. I am delighted that we are debating Scotland's fourth national planning framework today. That has been recognised across the chamber. That is a critically important strategy for Scotland's future. The draft NPF4 is, as has been recognised, a bold and ambitious plan that has the potential to ensure that we build the developments and infrastructure that we will need to help us to get to net zero and to tackle the nature crisis and to do that while making our places better for people and for business. I welcome the very thoughtful and comprehensive report produced by the local government housing and planning committee, well informed by evidence presented by several of our committees, as we have just heard, and by a broad range of stakeholders. I wish to place on record that I am incredibly grateful for the time that this Parliament and our many stakeholders have put into the work done to prepare and scrutinise the draft NPF4. I am confident that NPF4 has captured people's imaginations, and we are seeing a renaissance in respect of that often undervalued profession and vital public service. There has never been a more important time for planners to help to address some of the challenges that we are facing from climate change to Covid recovery. I have been especially keen that we in this chamber collectively embrace this opportunity with enthusiasm to shape what we really need from Scotland's planning system in the challenging years ahead. I am hugely encouraged by the committee's report and by the positive way in which the Parliament and stakeholders have engaged with the debate on our future places. It seems clear to me that we all recognise the potential for planners to make a real and positive difference to our people, economy and places. I want to build on that consensus as we move towards finalising NPF4 so that in the future we can look back with pride and say that we work together to make the right choices for future generations. The committee report is very constructive, and I expect that the debate to come will cover many of the issues that it raises, so I will not try to cover every point in detail just now. However, I will highlight a number of areas. Firstly, there has been a lot of comment on the use of language, detailed wording and the priority or weight to be given to different policies in NPF4. Through our public consultation, we have also received many detailed responses on that. I can assure the Parliament that we will work through the draft to ensure that the final version is very clear on what is expected in planning decisions. We have recently received a detailed and helpful response from the UK Climate Change Committee and will give that careful consideration. There is no point in signalling commitment to net zero unless we can be confident that the policies will lead to change on the ground. The committee makes an important point about community engagement, such as a vital part of the planning system, hearing from local people to inform the choices that we make for the future. The draft NPF4 was prepared on the basis of wide and positive engagement, including with community organisations and interest groups. Some members might have seen the enthusiastic responses that people have shared on social media. We are doing a great deal of work to make the planning system more accessible so that more people get involved in shaping their places. If I could ask a member to allow me some time to progress, I would like to take interventions that I always do, but I have a lot to get through and I am limited for time, but I will try to pick up on them in any points in my concluding remarks. I was going to say that we are doing a great deal of work to make the planning system more accessible so that more people get involved in shaping their places. There is much more work to do to inspire and engage with people, whether through digital apps or more formally through local place plans. The committee has also raised important points around key policy areas, including 20-minute neighbourhoods, renewable energy, town centres and housing. The final draft that we will present to this Parliament for approval will benefit from the many detailed responses that we have received on those and other topic areas. The pandemic has brought many challenges but also shown us that we can live in a different, more sustainable way that supports our health, builds communities and promotes more neighbourly places. Planning also plays a crucial role in supporting good green jobs and building a wellbeing economy. This is not about choosing development over environment but about place-based approaches that make good use of our assets by working with local people. I am conscious that some, for example in the renewables industry and house builders, have raised concerns about where our NPF4 will help to deliver the developments that we will need to get to net zero and support our future communities. I can assure the Parliament that we are considering those views very carefully alongside wider responses so that we get the final version right. I want to support the delivery of development but it must be of a good quality and in the right locations. The committee has also commented on the importance of monitoring and evaluation. That is an important part of the planning system that is reflected in the changes that we are making to local development plans to be informed by thorough evidence reports. It is also in how we are moving to a more outcomes-focused performance management system for planning. The NPF4 delivery programme will be a focal point for this monitoring. That is not just a plan that will sit on a shelf but a catalyst for place-based action closely aligned with a range of other programmes and investment plans. I can assure the Parliament that this work is on-going and that the revised draft NPF4 will be accompanied by a delivery programme when I bring it to the Parliament later this year. Finally, I want to touch on resources and, in particular, the importance of planning authorities in taking NPF4 forward. I give my commitment to revising the documents so that what is required of them is as clear as possible. Alongside that, I am committed to continuing to work with the high-level group to address performance and resources. Important work such as our collaboration to develop a pipeline of future planners will, I hope, mean that we can move forward with confidence that NPF4 is deliverable over the longer term. There are a wide range of views on NPF4, but I would ask all members to bear in mind one important point throughout this debate. The vast majority of people who have engaged in the draft NPF4 welcome its aims and ambition. Their comments focus on how we can best achieve those outcomes rather than asking for a change of direction. I want to build on that consensus so that the final version is a vision that we can all buy into. NPF4 brings with it a serious responsibility to do the right thing for Scotland. We must not find ourselves looking back at missed opportunities in years to come, thinking that we could and should have done more. I am looking forward to hearing views from around the chamber this afternoon. I will listen carefully and respond to matters raised, and I will attempt to take interventions in my closing remarks. I apologise that I have been unable to do so at this stage. I will also continue to think long and hard how we can make sure that Scotland's fourth national planning framework can be the best it can be before I bring it back to ask the Parliament to vote to prove it later in the year. I think that I would probably speak for all members of the local government committee. In fact, all the committees across the Parliament, when I say that instead of counting sheep to get to sleep at night, I now count national planning frameworks, I am sure that the minister is even worse to be quite frank. I would like to take genuinely this opportunity to pay tribute to all the individuals, organisations and businesses that have given evidence and submitted their views to the committee, and the work of all the committees. I think that this really does show the Parliament at its best when we work on a piece of work like this. From the outset, I want to state that the key concerns outlined in the committee report around MPF for very much stand, and I welcome what the minister said today. I hope that the minister will take them seriously and use the period that he now has to try to fix the framework. I wanted to use the time that I have today to touch upon a few important issues and also bring attention to a few concerns that we have on those benches with regard to MPF for, as it currently stands. Supporting the regeneration of our high streets is important, and supporting our Scottish retail sector to recover from the pandemic is also critical. There is cross-party support, I believe, for that town centre's first approach in our planning system. That is something that previous MPFs have looked towards achieving. However, I think that our concerns with regard to the proposed moratorium of out-of-town retail developments, for example, have been too prescriptive in something that we need to look towards changing and to look towards how the planning system currently looks at the merits of individual planning applications, as is currently the case. For example, garden centres and agricultural machinery retail are often on outskirts of towns, and that is something that we need to consider. I agree with Gillian Martin on one of the key things that I think is missing from this, and that is with regard to the priority around active travel and creating and building healthier communities. The pandemic has demonstrated the importance of access to safe green spaces for all of us to exercise, to undertake sport and for general mental wellbeing. I think that that is something that we need to capture within how we want to see our communities developed. During our time on the health and support committee, the minister and I heard of a number of opportunities to help to improve community access, for example, to local facilities, especially schools for sports clubs and a number of proposed reforms that were put to committees in the last session of this Parliament, which could make a real difference in making sure that new housing developments have access to green space, as well as looking to the legislation that we have all supported around access legislation. I welcome the Scottish Sports Association's points that they have put forward during this process, because I think that there is potential to move forward with a number of reforms. I hope that the minister, following the cross-party group that I know he attended, will look to take those forward. As Dean Lockhart stated, it is clear that there will be and there are a number of competing priorities and pressures within MPF4. As RSPs be Scotland, the Woodland Trust and Friends of the Earth, Scotland says in its briefings that the current draft of MPF4 lacks the policy detail that planners, who inevitably will be taking this forward, will need to tackle the nature and climate crisis within the planning system. The delivery of renewable green energy targets is a key area of MPF4, which I believe needs significant improvement and something that I have highlighted at committee. The renewable sector has been clear that it has significant concerns with the current draft. A number of companies have been calling for the draft, saying that the draft will be fatal to renewable sector if we do not see changes put forward. It is telling that almost 20 per cent of all correspondence that the committee received during our call for views on MPF4 came from renewable energy companies, highlighting their obvious and real concerns around the framework as it currently stands. The sector has outlined a number of options around drafting. I believe that it has also put that to ministers. I hope that that is something that we will see ministers look at. It is concerning that, as it stands, we could see a less positive planning framework around renewable developments as we saw in SPP 2014. Finlay Carson stated that there has been indeed a lot of focus around wording during evidence sessions on all the committee. That is really important. For civil servants who are working on this, that will be a challenge. Certainly, the evidence that we took at committee was understandable, but it is important that we see those changes. I know that key sectors have provided those helpful suggestions on how outcomes can be achieved, especially around policies around 3 19 28 32, and whether or not the descriptive word used has to change ahead of what has been currently in the three previous frameworks. That is something that will be difficult to look at, but I hope that that is something that the minister is looking at seriously with his officials. If we are serious about our net zero targets and the climate emergency, then the energy transition and creating the supply chain jobs, which Scotland has such a huge opportunity to deliver, is important and that can be part of that change as well. Finally, in the time that I have and perhaps the most important issue is around delivering the new affordable homes that we all want to see. I noted in their submission to the consultation that Homes for Scotland had highlighted in their documents a number of key concerns that, as it currently stands, we could see a reduced number of homes delivered exacerbating the housing crisis. I did want to see the framework include a housing crisis element for many communities that is there and should have been looked at. I hope to make sure that the framework works to deliver the homes that we all need to see as important. There is a lack of detail currently in the delivery strategy around financial interventions, which will help to deliver the homes that Scotland wants to see. As the convener highlighted in her opening remarks, the failure to address on-going resourcing challenges within local authorities is often holding back many key planning decisions across many sectors. That is something that I hope that we can see addressed. To conclude, I welcome the constructive approach that the minister has taken to date. He has a cross-parliament. Today, I hope, is genuinely the start of a process where ministers can reach out across the chamber and we will work to make sure that the final national planning framework delivers the planning system that Scotland needs to deliver the homes, the energy and the communities that we all want to see. Like the convener and others, I thank the clerks for their assistance with the evidence sessions and producing the report that we are debating this afternoon. I am also thankful to everyone who gave evidence that scrutinising the draft framework would have been much harder if not for the critical input of the practitioners and professionals that we heard from. Overwhelmingly, they said that the framework is ambitious, but lacks the detail and clarity necessary to aid their scrutiny or understand their role in delivering ambitions to reach net zero, make Scotland a healthier country or to tackle our housing crisis over the next 10 years. The lack of a delivery and resource plan and monitoring framework has further hindered our ability to appreciate and scrutinise the plan as well. At its most basic level, there have been concerns about the process and language used. Heads of planning called for a longer consultation process to prevent appeals and court cases. The net zero committee reported some respondents felt rushed to respond. There remains, for instance, an unresolved debate around the use of should and must. We heard contributions from the law society and surf that should may infer a level of discretion while Government officials have disagreed with that interpretation. Although that might seem technical, it is instructive because it allows us to ask then who the framework is for. Given that it was planning professionals who told us that they were struggling to understand the meaning and the intentions of some of their language in the framework, how can we expect the public to be able to access and understand that document? For the framework to be effective, local communities, particularly those who are disadvantaged, must be empowered to contribute to decisions about developments in their area. To do that, they need to understand it and not be worn down by constant consultation and jargon. In all likelihood, we believe that that draft framework will not deliver a public-led planning system nor can the ambitions be achieved given the current state of planning departments. Stripped back to their minimum in the face of £911 million, a real-term cut to local government since 2013, like far from our when the essence of Scotland's planning system, our committee noted that almost universal concern about resources and talent will ultimately undermine the delivery of the ambitions within that framework. Digging into the policies, where there is the detail, the framework then asks more questions. The emphasis on addressing the climate emergency is incredibly welcome, but the question of how to deal with it and balance competing priorities was something that we heard repeatedly. The minister has agreed to consider how a presumption in favour of renewables could be more explicit, but policy 19, which is most important for renewables and decarbonisation, is viewed as deficient, so that Energy Scotland says that it is internally contradictory. In Scotland, Scottish renewables say simply that the proposed draft does not support an expansion of renewable energy. They offer a full redraft of the policy. The need for a hierarchy of priorities was echoed by RIAS and Environment Link, so that communities and planners know what the priorities are. However, what sets off alarm bells for me, however, is the failure of the document to help tackle our housing crisis. As SA3 point out, housing to 2040 is barely aligned, but we heard that the minimum housing numbers risk becoming a de facto target for low house building. Homes for Scotland say that the minimum housing numbers serve no beneficial purpose and were still that we could be planning for decline. Two councils questioned the numbers that they are giving and the process altogether, while Taylor Wimpey advised me that the policies contained within the framework could make it difficult to progress proposals to delivery on the ground. The minister's desire to focus on great places rather than numbers, I feel, won't do anything to support the most disadvantaged at the sharp end of the housing crisis. I urge him to work instead across all Government to set an all-tenure housing target within the revised document that he brings to Parliament for approval. The framework is undoubtedly a draft, but much more of a draft than a fear that the minister and his official realise. It needs more than just a simple brush up I heard of parliamentary approval. As the consultation closed, the housing and place delivery forum, including academics, Homes for Scotland, Elacio, SFHA and the Chartered Institute for Housing, wrote to him asking that the process is paused so clear shortcomings can be addressed and the spatial framework radically rethought to align with existing governance and delivery structures. That is a serious intervention. I think that it sums up where we are. I would ask the minister to respond to that urgent call in the debate today and in his response to the committee's report to substantively revise the framework so planners can then match the ambitions, the clear ambitions, with NPF4, with clarity, practical action and delivery. The national planning framework is an important part of Scotland's future. Like others, I2 have received many briefings and representations from stakeholders across Scotland in preparation for this debate. To quote RSPB Scotland, The current draft of NPF4 lacks the policy detail that planners, developers and communities need to tackle the nature and climate crisis through Scotland's planning system. The RSPB goes on to say that they share the committee's view that Parliament needs more time for scrutiny and believes that members must ask for clear mechanisms within NPF4 for delivering biodiversity enhancement. I would like to echo this sentiment for more scrutiny and greater time to flesh out the detail. I would like to start by talking about town planning and the impact that it can have on lives and say a little about rural and island areas, too. Last month, my Liberal Democrat colleague and Westminster, Christine Jardin MP, brought forward a private members bill, the planning women's safety bill. Women need a voice in planning processes to bring necessary perspectives to give women the foundations for more agency and to feel less vulnerable in their daily lives, but town planning has most often been from men's perspective. Designing spaces without gender bias is crucial if we are to have well-lit and open areas, avoiding narrow, poorly-lit, twisting alleyways that are not routes that conjure up safety, security and encourage passage. It is about enabling women to plan and go about their lives with safety and security. Women should be confident in knowing that their concerns have been considered in new developments so that they can feel safer in living their lives. Given what has been said before about the lack of planners generally, I think that there is a job of what to be done in encouraging more people into planning, especially women. The Scottish Sports Association also highlighted the ability of planning decisions to enhance lives in their response to the consultation. Planning, done in the right way, can increase mental health and active travel, thereby making a happier population. Different planning ideas could, for example, encourage more learners to use active travel methods to get to school, allowing for further access to nature, to physical activity and to extracurricular activities where rigid bus timetables can limit travel home. Liberal Democrats believe that decisions should be made as close to the people they will affect as possible, and that is why we believe in empowering local communities. It is one of the reasons why my colleagues voted against the planning bill in the last Parliament, as it did not address the voices of local communities adequately enough throughout the new planning process. Scotland has a housing crisis and my own constituency is not immune from that situation either. To address that, we must look at building more homes, but we must look at building the right homes in the right places. The NPF4 is important for our rural and island communities. A Scottish Liberal Democrat campaigning led to a rural and islands housing fund being established to increase the supply of affordable housing in those communities through renovation and new builds. We would like to see an extension and expansion of the rural housing fund and the islands housing fund and reducing the barriers for communities to access them. We would also like to see a requirement for public bodies to consult with rural communities and island communities, and as well to make sure that Scottish legislation is rural proof, as well as island proof. In February in a session of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, I quizzed the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands on fuel poverty in rural and island communities. The areas often most greatly impacted, asking if the NPF4 should give more prominence to the issue. Deputy Presiding Officer, this is our opportunity to make the right choices for the future. Most scrutiny and greater time to flesh out the detail would be a good next step. Getting this right now will be worth it for all of us, for the communities that we represent in the long run. I call Graeme Dey to be followed by Graeme Simpson. A process such as parliamentary consideration of the draft NPF4 asks one fundamental thing of those charts with conducting it. Considering the Government's proposals and any contrary viewpoints, we do so under merit, setting aside our own instinctive positions and recognising that what we are in essence being asked to do is reach conclusions based on opinions or interpretations, sometimes clouded by predictable underlying, perhaps understandable biases. In essence, committees have to sift through claim and counter claim, often each with their own merits in order to point an appropriate and balanced way forward. I pay tribute to the local Government Committee, which I served on for a small part of its consideration of the NPF4, for highlighting some of the genuine key issues with the draft and for making some reasonable ask to the Government. Based on the contributions from other relevant communities, I would extend that praise to the other committees. In the brief time available to me today, I want to focus on just a few of the issues. The fact that at the heart of some of the legitimate criticism of the framework is an ask around greater Government direction, certainly as a long-serving member of this Parliament causes me a wry smile. All too often, the central Government is criticised for being too prescriptive and too directive in its approach. We are told that there should be greater flexibility afforded local government when it comes to implementation of policies and plans. As the report highlights, there is a plea from the people whose job it will be to bring aspects of the NPF4 to life at a local level for greater clarity around prioritisations and the true meanings of concepts, along with the use of clearer and more decisive language. To be fair, prioritisation is perhaps a legitimate ask. The appeal from Christina Granger of the Royal Incorporation of Architects for a hierarchy of matters that should be taken into consideration strikes me as having quite a degree of justification. At the very least, planners need some broad guidance. Then there is the issue of terms such as community wealth building in 20-minute neighbourhoods and what they actually mean, especially in the latter instance in rural settings. The committee heard also of concerns around the definition of out-of-town locations. Clarity of a sort here is needed not only for planners and developers, but frankly the wider public, some of whom will, let's face it, wonder what on earth community wealth building actually means. Then there's the matter, as we've heard, around the choice and meaning of the language used, the use of the word should rather than must, being deployed. Of course, the view of the law society that using should in relation to policies 5 to 35 of the MPP offers insufficient clarity on whether the policy must be complied with. As a number of colleagues have noted, there's also the issue about capacity and the ability of planning departments to deliver on MPF 4. It was quite sobering to learn that resources at the disposal of planning departments had suffered a 42 per cent real-terms cut since 2009, meaning that they are struggling to meet current duties and obligations, let alone what MPF 4 will generate. In addition to the resource issue, we heard about the need for an estimated 700 new planners over the next 10 to 15 years, and we were told that a change in culture is needed. COSLA is advocating for full-cost recovery in order to properly fund planning departments, including in terms of reskilling existing staff. They probably have a case, but personally, I don't want some firm assurance that any sums generated by full-cost recovery were effectively ring-fenced for planning departments and not left at risk of hiving off, because otherwise delivery of MPF 4 would without doubt be at risk. I'll conclude by expressing my support for the ask of the local government committee that it is a further opportunity—a proper opportunity—to consider the finalised version of MPF 4. It's an absolute pleasure to take part in this debate and I in some ways feel responsible for this debate taking place, because I was on the committee, the old local government committee, that dealt with the planning bill when it was going through, and it was at my insistence, in fact, I think it was my amendment that got the ability for Parliament to vote on the MPF 4 into that bill and subsequently the act. So, here we are. What we didn't have was the ability to amend the draft, and I think from what we've heard so far, that would be a good thing. We seem to have a listening minister in post, so perhaps as we move on in this process, he might want to consider some kind of ability for committees to be able to change things, improve things, because improvement from what we've heard already is definitely needed. We've heard the word clarity used time and time again. Graham Day, the previous speaker, he spoke about woolly phrases that crop up throughout this document and as two former journalists. That's great, because when you use phrases like community, engagement and 20-minute neighbourhoods, you have to ask, what on earth does that mean? This, at the moment, I'm afraid, is a typical planning document where you can make any argument fit any circumstance. It may take time, but it does need to be rewritten. I think Ariane Burgess, although she might not realise it, actually agrees with that point. We need to have fewer get-out clauses in this. Now, let me give you an example of what I mean. The community of Calderbank in North Lanarkshire, which I represent as a regional member, has had the threat of a large planning development hanging over it for some years now, and includes a large area of ancient woodland, an area rich in heritage. Now, what I'm looking at in the MPF4 is, would that protect that area of ancient woodland? Currently, the answer is no. Now, I'm a firm supporter and defender of green spaces and particularly wood, so let's have a look at what it says about woodlands. It says, existing woodlands should be protected wherever possible, wherever possible. That's the get-out clause. Policy 34 on trees, woodland and forestry says, local development plans should identify and protect existing woodland and potential for its enhancement or expansion. Development proposals should not be supported where they would result in any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition. Well, what is an ancient woodland? How do we tackle the old trick of chopping down trees, saying they're past their best? There is never any enforcement action even if the tree is protected. It also says, development proposals should not be supported where they would result in quotes, fragmenting or severing woodland habitats unless mitigation measures are identified and implemented. That's another get-out clause. There are a whole series of them, so throughout this document there is woolly language. It needs to be tightened up, and I would just urge the minister to get people round the table. I think he wants to do that so that we can get to a point where everyone can agree on a document that actually makes some sense and delivers. I now call Paul McLennan to be followed by Paul Sweeney. Up to four minutes please, Mr McLennan. I'm delighted to speak in this debate this afternoon, and I also thank the clerks and other members of the committee this afternoon. I can also refer members to my register of interests. I'm a seven councillor on Eastwood and Council at least for the next two weeks. I've been a seven councillor on Eastwood and for the past 15 years. Planning is fundamental to the economic well-being of an area. It's fundamental to the biodiversity of an area, and it's fundamental. Now we tackle a climate change challenge that we all face. I want to focus on two key areas this afternoon. That's on housing and renewable energy. If we are to meet the 110,000 affordable housing target by 2032, we need as much clarity around some key strategies. In achieving these targets we need to maximise deliverability, and that's a key word, deliverability of homes of all tenures aligned with the state of James and ambitions of the Scottish Government. The committee report mentions that we need to ensure that there is compatibility, and as has been mentioned, and follow-through on the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement figures and on the housing needs demand assessment. So I'm going to use Matlar and Honda going forward rather than where, and also key fundamentally to the housing 2040 strategy. Homes for Scotland in the response to NPR4 stated that the 10-year Matlar figures, as pretended by each local authority in the Scottish Government, need to be robustly challenged. Local authorities should be able to justify the minimum housing number to ensure that the minimum standard is set at the appropriate level. Some local authorities are proposed a Matlar figure that falls below their previous 10-year completions level. That is a critical consideration at this time, given the role that NPR4 will play as a core part of Scotland's suite of next-generation local development plans. The current Honda process also needs to be refreshed as soon as possible to identify the full range of housing needs across the country, with many households at the moment being excluded. We need to ensure that housing with care requirements, along with student housing numbers, are reflected accurately. NPR4 also sets out higher the bar and existed previously regarding the allocation of sites for residential development. The draft NPR4 outlines that sites should now be deliverable. We need to ensure that key stakeholders work closely in this regard. Discussions around resource are also key. We heard that before from other members. Planets fees have just increased in 1 April this year, and we need to ensure that there is a clear stat at the improvement of planning performance in line with that. In developing sites, there are two other key areas that I want to mention. Again, it has been mentioned before. We need to ensure that active transport considerations are front and centre if any proposal on this needs co-production and design with local communities. Walking, cycling, horse riding and bus routes need to be in place. The other consideration is about ensuring sufficient green space and infrastructure to support development of sports facilities. Many new developments see lots of children moving to areas. We need to ensure that sports provision has ability to grow. The second key area is renewables. Scotland is right to recognise the emergency facing our climate. We have an ambitious net zero target. To realise a Scotland-powered by renewables energy, we must achieve a net zero planning system. The NPR4 planning reforms provide a key opportunity to deliver that ambition. The sector already supports 22,500 jobs, and the economic input is £5.2 billion a year. The following priorities should be considered to achieve this. Climate change and nature recovery should become the golden thread running throughout the entire NPR4. We need to ensure that there is clear guidance now. The planning balance should change to ensure that addressing climate change and supporting nature recovery as the guiding primary principles in all plans and all decisions. We need to ensure that NPR4 delivers levels of renewable energy development needed to achieve net zero. NPR4 should be an enabling tool for facilitating an ambition set by the Scottish Government. It should also ensure that it is designed to facilitate renewable energy deployment. In conclusion, NPR4 is one of the most important policy decisions that we will take in this parliamentary session. The local government housing planning committee will continue its work to maximise the opportunity that it brings. I now call Paul Sweeney to be followed by Emma Harper up to four minutes, please, Mr Sweeney. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been interesting to listen to the contributions of colleagues and I share many of the concerns raised by the committee about the inadequacies of the current national planning framework. Certainly, it is a great tradition in Scotland where, born of the Scottish Enlightenment, urban planning was actually devised in the first instance in Scotland. We have a great tradition of it. Indeed, the city of Glasgow itself was largely designed by the city architect John Carrick and laid out from the 1870s under the city improvement trust, which set the standards of how tenement buildings might look, the datam lines of streets, how wide streets would be, the sanitary conditions of the city's public buildings, and that is largely given rise to the character, the outstanding historic character of the city of Glasgow, despite many ill-advised post-war planning decisions that the city has suffered. Unfortunately, over the past 20 to 30 years, certainly the previously accepted standardised design of communities, high-density, sustainable, scalable in cities such as Glasgow, has been eroded and replaced by a patchwork lacy fare approach, where developers are largely given free rein to build whatever they see fit. A key omission of the national planning framework is the need for rigorous and clearly prescribed urban design codes, and that is something that we really need to see more rigorously attempted in this national planning framework. Attempts have been made to reinstate a design code with work undertaken by heritage architects, such as collective architecture and dress for the weather. However, as of yet, they have failed to be adopted in Glasgow and in Scotland more widely, much to the detriment of the city itself. It also provides a huge opportunity to address the climate emergency. For example, if there were to be a standardised design code for Glasgow, it would allow for the creation of standard designs for products such as air-source heat pumps and how they would be installed in these buildings. Instead, if I had constituents contact me, frustrated that their planning applications to install such devices are being rejected by Glasgow City's planning department rather than encouraged and adopted in a constructive way. I think that that is certainly very short-sighted and counterproductive in the context of a twin climate and cost of living crisis, and I hope that that can be rectified swiftly through the NPF-4 process. We also need to look at our city's beauty and how the impacts on people's well-being in the sense of self-esteem in communities, as Harry Burns has often talked about. The urban environment reflects people's psychological sense of wellbeing, and that is often given scant regard in the planning process. We look at things as simple as how beautiful shopfronts look. We have seen examples of outstanding best practice in Scotland where traditional shopfront reinstatement programmes have really dramatically lifted and improved the condition of high streets, yet they are seen as an isolated intervention, rather than the norm that is formalised in planning legislation. That is something that we need to learn from more rigorously and adopt it as part of a proper urban design code. I hope that NPF-4 will look at where best practice is really working well and scale up as the baseline for how Scotland should adopt its policy, where it is simply being a flash in the pan. Work is under way in areas such as Sarasen Street and Postal Park in the north of Glasgow. The Postal Park business improvement district is working with local businesses to encourage those kinds of interventions, and they are proving to be amazingly dramatically successful. Those are the things that we need to seriously see developed as part of NPF-4, where we are in vague promises and vague visions. We also need to look at sustainability. In Glasgow, for example, there are over 76,000 pre-1919 tenements dating back to the pre-1920 period. There is a maintenance crunch coming in Glasgow where over 60 per cent of those buildings are in need of urgent repairs, estimated to be in excess of £3 billion. We are not addressing this with nearly the sense of urgency that is required, and NPF-4 is not addressing it. We only need to look at recent crises such as that faced by the Trinity Towers in part of the circus, where the owners are faced with a £3 million repair bill, which is potentially going to make them bankrupt. Those are just two examples where we need to seriously see change in more rigorous intervention. The new NPF-4 is the best opportunity we have had in decades to reinvigorate our great cities and towns, stitch them back together and make them more sustainable, attractive places to live. I hope that we are all able to work together to achieve that aim. I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I responded to the NPF-4 consultation and I appreciate colleagues' comments so far in the chamber. I want to focus my comments on two specific issues in which the draft framework will impact. One is vacant derelict and abandoned sites, and the other is permitted development rights. Scotland has almost 11,000 hectares of vacant derelict sites, equivalent to 20,556 football pitches, and people on average live within 500 metres of a derelict site. According to the Scottish Land Commission, if a person lives in an SIMD area, they are more likely to live within 250 metres of a derelict site. Evidence that we took at health committee affirmed that those sites negatively affect community mental health and wellbeing. People feel less safe, people use the words blight and eyesore, people take less pride in their own home place when living beside derelict, decaying or dilapidated eyesore, and the Scottish Land Commission affirmed that in their work. I have proactively sought to engage in support communities to see timely action taken to address those sites across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. That includes the former interfloor factory in Dumfries, George Hotel in Stranrair, Central Hotel in Anand and Dirstain Mill and NPO building in Hoyke, which I visited yesterday. However, as the draft framework and indeed the Scottish Land Commission have pointed out, addressing those buildings currently presents many challenges to communities and local authorities. I welcome that the Spatial Principles for Scotland described in the report The Spatial Principles for Scotland 2045 seeks to limit urban expansion into greenfield sites and instead will incentivise the reuse of brownfield sites for redevelopment. However, as noted by COSLA, there exists additional financial constraints around utilising abandoned sites in this way and it is often extremely costly for developers and local authorities to address them. For example, the former Maxelton High School in Dumfries caused about a quarter of a million pounds to demolish before the site can even be redeveloped. I would like assurance from the minister that the Government will proactively work with local authorities and developers to ensure that they are accessing vacant and derelict land funds and that the public funding will continue to be made available to redevelop brownfield sites, eyesore sites, which blight our communities. My second point today is that I have been involved in the community in Estelle Muir, the Samilin Buddhist Monastery and with the Upper Territ Dale and Borthwick Water Community Council. They are all concerned over the dynamic and target shooting activity in the area where high-velocity weapons of up to 50 calibre are being fired. Those powerful weapons, which require skill and accuracy, shoot ammunition up to two-mile distance and are being used to close by the Roman and Reaver Walkways Craig Hope Education Centre on the border side of the border way and the southern upland way. I share the community's concerns over the safety and the reported high decibel level of the shooting. The shooting activities operate in using a law loophole. In class 15 of the town and country planning general permitted development order 1992, the permitted development rights allow for a temporary use of land for a different use to its lawful use up to 28 days in a calendar year. The only exemptions are for caravan sites or an open-air market. I agree with the community that the shooting activity, particularly with such high-powered weapons and ammunition, should be subject to robust major planning that allows local voices to be heard. I would like to see that in the final NPF framework. I thank the minister for his engagement so far on the matter, but I would like to ask the minister for a commitment that the NPF will ensure that any proposal for shooting ranges and activity, like shooting, should be subject to a robust major planning application. I reiterate that my two asks are to focus on tackling vacant, derelict and abandoned sites and looking at closing the shooting activity loophole in the permitted development rights. Thank you. I now call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Fulton McGregor up to four minutes please. Thank you very much Deputy Presiding Officer and can I welcome this fourth national planning framework. I think in particular the recognition of the climate emergency for the first time as an overarching objective is really welcome because of course what we plan for today must deliver a just transition tomorrow rather than locking us into a polluting economy for decades to come, but like previous planning frameworks this NPF does not sit in isolation. What is agreed in the final version of the strategic transport projects review and the energy strategy will also be very key, while at the local level councils will have work to do to translate some of the fresh thinking in this NPF into their own local development plans. And 20 minute neighbourhoods are a case in point here because they should set a new standard for localisation where travels minimise, where people can meet more of their everyday needs locally and where our high streets are regenerated. They should be a benchmark for new developments, but of course we're already seeing major housing growth areas such as in Sgoon being built with minimal upfront investment in essential services building car dependency in from day one and we're still seeing multimillion pound proposals for car dependent out-of-town retail centres being approved by many local councils like the controversial Asda development in Stirling. Now this has to change 20 minute neighbourhoods must mark the start of relocalisation driven by the needs of communities rather than the whim of developers. Now Parliament has also heard important evidence on nature restoration. I think Graham Simpson highlighted some of the woolly words that exist around woodlands, but the draft acknowledges the nature emergency, that's right, but it must now follow through making sure that developments deliver net positive benefits for nature and also that nature networks are given the status and planning that they actually need as a major part of our national infrastructure. The environmental NGOs have provided, I think, important feedback. I know the minister is listening, I hope he will now act on that feedback from the NGOs. Now, Presiding Officer, I'm very proud that this Parliament, even with its limited devolved powers, has been able to put in place a ban on new nuclear power stations and fracking through the planning framework. Scotland is still living through a damaging and costly legacy from coal and nuclear power that communities and energy consumers will pay for generations to come. The Tories and Labour need to come clean as to where they would put new nuclear power stations and waste dumps in Scotland, because, as I read it in the national planning framework, there is no place for either in NPF4. I would say to the Tories as well which communities from Larbott to Canonby would see fracking licences resurrected and planning applications supported by Tory councillors, because we cannot afford any more costly distractions like fracking and nuclear that will take years to implement but offer nothing to people who are having to choose today between heating and eating. Let's face it, Scotland has won the jackpot of clean renewable resources and with technology costs continuing to plummet now is the time to double down on that natural advantage and deliver new wind and solar farms. This is technology that's developed rapidly. It's time that the planning system caught up. There will always be constraints on where wind farms can go but we can maximise extensions, repower existing wind farms while developing new sites that have lingered in the planning system for years. This draft NPF does not yet deliver the changes that are needed if we're to double the capacity of onshore wind and increase ambition on solar but, Presiding Officer, I look forward to the minister reflecting on the recommendations made across Parliament. Scotland can power ahead in tapping both the climate and nature emergencies while delivering a just transition that is both prosperous and fair. I thank the local government housing and planning committee for bringing the issue forward for debate. I'm not a member of the committee but was keen to participate to raise some issues of importance to my constituents. There are some key tenants that I believe should be the foundation of this framework and they are making provisions for a nature positive Scotland and a healthy active Scotland. I fully welcome the NPF4 as we need a long-term plan and I agree that any development plans must have emission assessments, physical activity assessments and green space provisions enshrined into their planning. Investing in a healthy active Scotland is something that we will have immuno benefits and should be encouraged by all. Playing fields, community centres and investment in schools and other facilities for other grass root level sports for local communities is something that will benefit communities and all ages. The pandemic and lockdowns have also surely demonstrated the need for everyone to have access to good quality local green and blue spaces and reinforces, for example, the vital work in an area such as Coatbridge, the Munkland canal and making it accessible as possible for people. I want to put in record my thanks to the friends of Munkland canal group, Scottish canals and surgeons for their recent work and investment. I do hope to bring a member's debate on this very issue to the chamber soon. I will now spend the remainder of my time speaking about some local issues that do have a national bearing with the planning system that has been brought to my attention in my time as MSP. As a brief bit of context for the chamber, my constituency of Coatbridge and Crescent is home to the densely urban town of Coatbridge, which is flanked by similar post-industrial towns. However, the north of my constituency, approximately one-third of it, is comprised of several small towns and villages. Those include Steps, Muirhead, Crescent, Moody's Burn, Glenboygan, Gatclosh and, together, they are referred to as the Northern Corridor. The requirement of a nature positive and healthy act of Scotland applies to those currently living in communities like the Northern Corridor. This area has seen huge increase in development and planning in recent years and many of my constituents feel that this has come at the cost of a nature positive and healthy act of locality. Those communities are brought together ably through the Northern Corridor community forum and I want to put in record my thanks to all those who have worked to ensure the forum is a success. I cannot possibly name everyone but, in particular, current office bearers Alice Morton, Isabel Kelly and Carol Henderson. Throughout the Northern Corridor, every one of these is very unique and often also post-industrial small communities has witnessed extensive development in recent years with a seemingly endless list of planning applications. It is understandable that developers want to build in these areas and my communities are not against house building, but the sheer scale of these developments have brought with it a huge loss of asset in terms of green space, woodland and wider natural environment, transport difficulties and rapidly increasing populations have left schools alarming over capacity and health services struggling to cope with demand, points that have been made by other speakers earlier. Those are real issues and generally the Northern Corridor community forum do not feel that their voices are being heard and that the North Lancer Council local development plan is not taking into account the specific needs of those village areas. Thinking back to 2019, I spoke in support of petition PE1748, lodged by the forum mentioned by Isabel Kelly, which looked at planning policy for small communities in Scotland. The crux of the petition was that any future planning policy should undertake a full audit of community assets and infrastructure before development takes place and that planning policy listens to local communities about high-value assets that might be jeopardised. I think that this is a reasonable request and the NPF forum must acknowledge that the desires and concerns for existing communities are necessary for inclusion in planning policy also. We cannot get away from the fact that some people in local communities, such as those in the Northern Corridor, do feel ignored when it comes to planning policy. The minister, I know, had a lot of correspondence with the minister on this issue and I want to thank him for all the feedback that he has given me and the responses to those, but in summing up I would be grateful if two points can be addressed. First, I am aware that the minister is in the process of approving the adoption of the North Lancer LDP. Can I ask how he will ensure that concerns from my constituents are taken into account in this and following this process? How do you think that it would be best for the Government to engage directly on a face-to-face basis with the forum? Secondly, can the minister advise how best it would be to... Briefly, Mr McGregor, over your time... ...or inquiry of issues facing the Northern Corridor area in North Lancer? I will close there, Presiding Officer, thank you. I now call Megan Gallacher to be followed by Fausal Troudry up to four minutes, please, Ms Gallacher. Thank you, Presiding Officer. National Planning Framework 4 formed a large part of the local government housing and planning committee's work over the last few months, and I welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate. As many members have outlined, MPF 4 sets out where development and infrastructure are required throughout the whole of Scotland. There are, of course, merits in undertaking this piece of work, and I believe that the intentions are genuine. However, as with every piece of legislation, MPF 4 does not come without its challenges. That was certainly my experience as a committee member who participated in formal evidence sessions on the framework alongside stakeholder engagement events outwith the committee structure. At times, I was rather frustrated with the process. Although I support some of the ambitions contained within National Planning Framework 4, I do not believe that the Scottish Government has understood the scale of the work involved in implementing the framework. That was certainly the view expressed by key stakeholders during our evidence sessions. For example, many stakeholders outlined that framework lacks clarity. Dr Caroline Brown, Professor of Infrastructure at Harriet Waught University, raised concerns about clarity within the MPF 4 document. She explained that elements of MPF 4 need to be fleshed out to provide clarity, particularly in a system that is struggling for resources. Lack of resource, which has been mentioned by many members so far, is a point that I would like to raise during my short contribution this afternoon. I will declare an interest, Presiding Officer, as I am, until 5 May, a Serving Council at the North Lanarkshire Council. We will need to be better funded if MPF 4 is to be a success. As we know, council funding has been cut over the last decade, and that has had a considerable impact on planning decisions among other service areas and local authorities. As we know, local authorities are best placed to implement planning decisions in their communities. However, they have been starved of the ambition to make changes due to the lack of fair funding. MPF 4 could allow for greater flexibility in local government planning policy. I believe that that would lead to better decisions that would improve our diverse and unique communities throughout Scotland. Last week, I visited Barnes Hall and Muddewal in my region with the local RSVP team, and for an urbanised area, it is fantastic to have such a beautiful nature reserve on your doorstep. One of the many issues that we discussed during our walk around the reserve was increasing the resilience of biodiversity, helping to tackle climate change and directing investment towards nature and creating better spaces for people and nature to go habit. That left me wondering why plans relating to the creation of a nature network was not included in MPF 4 and if that is an area that should be explored further within the final draft. Four minutes is not a long time to reflect on weeks of evidence and the content within MPF 4 document, but one other area that I would like to mention before I draw my remarks to a close relates to 20-minute neighbourhoods. That was one of the many areas that I focused on when asking questions during committee, and more work is needed to define a 20-minute neighbourhood and what that would mean, particularly for our rural areas. We have a lack of transport infrastructure in our rural areas, and that would need to be significantly improved for a 20-minute neighbourhood to even be considered. I feel that that idea is more intended for urban areas, but we cannot cut off our rural areas that are in desperate need of investment. I believe that that specific area needs expanded, and I would be grateful to the minister if he could reflect and again outline how rural parts of Scotland could implement 20-minute neighbourhoods, especially in relation to building local circular economies. To conclude, MPF 4 has its merits, but we need more clarity over its deliverability. My worry is that MPF 4 will overpromise and under deliver for communities who need development and infrastructure. My other concern is that, by the lack of clarity contained within the current document, that will be open to interpretation, and there will be no way to record our monitor progress. Will we be able to find out if any lessons have been learned from previous national frameworks, and how will success be monitored moving forward? Finally, I would like to see a national planning framework that gives our local authorities more autonomy to make the best possible decisions for that area. Thank you. I now call Faisal Chowdhury to be followed by Alistair Allant up to four minutes please, Mr Chowdhury. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I must firstly commend the committee and its members on their hard work producing this report. It provides a good overview of the benefits and problems of the draft planning framework. This framework is going to set the stage for Scotland's development in the coming years, as a national committee committed to sustainability, biodiversity and tackling the climate crisis. The committee clearly recognises the importance of getting this right. This is part of why I and my colleagues on the benches find the lack of details in the framework to be particularly concerning. Planning authorities across Scotland must have clarity, both in terms of their priorities and the definition of the areas they are to prioritise if the NPF4 is to be successful. This clarity is particularly important because of the emphasis the Scottish Government is putting on the climate emergency. We, of course, welcome this emphasis, but the authorities who will be operating under this framework must have confidence that they are following it as it was intended. Any lack of clarity defeats the point of having national planning framework in the first place and invites piecemeal implementation across local authorities. We must also ensure that people have confidence in the planning system and the role of local development plans. I have heard from within the Lothian region that the Scottish Government has not provided robust interim guidance on the issues of effective land supply. Reporters have also been given requirements which have led to them approving speculation sites that do not fit with the local development plans. How in this circumstance are local populations and local authorities to be brought along with the planning and development process? Any national framework must be a collaborative process that brings local population and local authorities along rather than alienating them. Also, if we are to ensure a truly national planning framework, we must have a commitment from the Scottish Government to properly funded planning department. After years of real-terms cuts to local authorities, we have a situation where planning departments have been cut back to their bare minimum. How do we expect this framework to work at a national level when its implementation will depend on how or indeed if local authorities across Scotland have been able to shield their planning departments from nearly a decade of cuts? It is crucial that we get these questions right now rather than chasing solutions to them years down the line and risking yet more waste of time and resources pursuing goals that are not clearly set out. I therefore join with my colleagues in calling for a pause to this process so that these points can be addressed. Members, have I already seen and heard in this debate evidence that MPF4 marks a real turning point in Scotland's planning system? Not least because that system now allows a key role for this Parliament. The draft of the fourth national planning framework that was made before Parliament last November has been subject to extensive scrutiny and interest both here and in wider society, as a number of speakers have reflected on. The draft represents a change in direction in how we think of the places that we live in Scotland. It is grounded. I hope that in an attempt to ensure that our planning system can live up to the aspirations of COP and recover economically from Covid, as well as simply make our communities more resilient and more pleasant places to work, and above all, perhaps, places that are important to see with a sense of distinctive place. However, I think that we all recognise that for those aspirations to be realised, strong leadership will certainly be needed in this place and locally. Compared to its predecessors, MPDF4 is likely to be shaped to a greater extent by this Parliament following the Planning Scotland Act 2019. The importance of meeting the needs of communities is recognised in the longer 120-day period of scrutiny and in the requirement for the draft NPF to be approved by a resolution of this Parliament before it can be adopted by Government. The draft has been scrutinised, as others have commented on by four committees of this Parliament. The Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth has in turn reacted to the process, and the local government housing and planning committee's report welcomes the NPF4 and its ambition. However, one item that I wanted to focus on briefly is the spatial strategy and the place that it is given to it, and how the Parliament will need to shape that as a concept. I think that, particularly of spatial strategy, as it applies in rural areas, where, as others have mentioned, the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods will need to be imagined slightly differently for obvious reasons. We will need to develop those concepts as we go in order to counteract and not contribute towards the tendencies towards the centralisation of population in a few small number of rural centres away from our more fragile communities that has happened over the past few decades. It is good to see the focus that the NPF4 puts on rural proofing planning goals in rural areas. The draft NPF4 sets out important proposals for the resettlement of previously inhabited areas. It will enable new homes in rural communities with planning policies that are more proactive and directive in shaping existing places and creating new ones. In particular, we will have to put housing needs at the heart of what we understand by good rural planning. Literally everywhere I go in my island constituency, whatever the meeting is about, people express to me their anxieties about the need for a affordable housing, both to buy and to rent. We need to overcome outmoded models of planning social housing that create a catch-22 where no houses are built in some rural areas where there is no record of demand. Of course, there is often no record of demand simply because there are virtually no rented houses for which anyone might apply. On that note, I hope that, both in rural and urban Scotland alike, we can work together as a Parliament to ensure that NPF4 can enable the investment and development that Scotland will need in the coming decades, creating communities where people can prosper and where, crucially, they can afford to live. Tom Arthur said earlier that, in terms of NPF4, the majority of consultants, the majority of people who have come back, welcomed the aims, and of that I have absolutely no doubt. However, I do agree with the committee that there is a lack of detail contained within the draft document and the absence of a clear delivery plan backed up by financial commitments and an effective monitoring process leaves more questions than it does give answers. That needs to be addressed. Beatrice Wishart said that when the planning bill last came to this Parliament, she and her party voted against it. I certainly voted against that, and so did the Labour Party, because despite the rhetoric about wanting to engage communities, wanting to involve communities, giving communities far more say, the reality is that that planning bill denied people the same rights, denied communities the same rights as developers, and surely it cannot be right. I know that SNP colleagues voted with the Tories against the amendments to give equal rights to communities and individuals, but it cannot be right that developers have such control and such power over communities, over elected councillors, over democratically elected planning committees, because we are seeing time and time again that when decisions are made at the local level with the support of local people and local communities, those decisions can be over ruled, because developers have the right appeal and the Scottish Government report their then steps and more often than not upholds the appeal against the views and wishes of communities and peoples. That cannot be right and that has to be addressed. For serious about giving people a real say in their communities, we need to address the imbalance between the power of developers over the power of communities, the power of people and indeed the power of democratically elected planning committees. Like Emma Harper I also responded to the consultation and like Emma Harper I do believe that if we can get this right then it would be in everybody's interest to be able to develop our communities and ensure that those communities have the type of ambition in them that is set out in this document. So I do hope the minister in praising people that support the aims will listen to what they have to say and will take on view the points that are being made. Coming to that the RSPB asking I would hope the minister will address this and sum it up. What are the next steps and will there be an opportunity for further public consultation, further public engagement? They also state that MPF4 recognises the dual climate and nature crisis but a wide range of representations have raised concerns that as drafted it will not play its part in halting biodiversity loss let alone support nature recovery. So will the draft be amended to take into account those comments and the many many comments that have come across through this process? A key issue that comes up again and again is that any planning framework is destined to fail unless planning departments across Scotland are properly funded. I'm not sure I've actually heard the minister acknowledge the current state of planning departments up and down Scotland. I'm certainly not blaming the minister. Over a number of years planning departments, economic development departments have been disproportionately cut as part of the overall cuts that are going into local government. As a result of that I would contest that there are very few planning services across Scotland that will be able to deliver on the ambition that Emma Harper and I and others welcome so that point must be addressed. I think that COSLA have made the point. The committee have made the point. I welcome the importance placed on addressing the climate emergency. However, there is not enough clarity for planners on how to deal with the emergency in the face of competing priorities and in particular the scale of the housing crisis that we have in this country. If we are going to tackle the housing crisis then we need to start looking at how we are able to use land. We need to give local authorities the confidence that they can start to be able to identify land and through the legal processes take land where land is needed to build houses for social good, the type of housing that is actually required and councils must have those powers. The issue of front-loading is not addressed here. I have raised with Mr Arthur's predecessors that there are major development sites, certainly in five but I believe across Scotland, that are stalled right now because they are lacking front-loading for investment in education, in health and whilst there is funds there for infrastructure in terms of roads, roads, etc. There is no fund to support infrastructure when it comes to education, when it comes to health. Again, as that is not addressed, there are major developments stalled, so it really is the developers that can come up with the land that needs the least investment and for land in areas like where I live, where there is a 900 house development completely stalled because of a failure to put the infrastructure in. Those are just some of the issues that we need to address, so I do hope that the minister will confirm that there will be further discussions, further debate and that we can see how we take on board all the points that have been brought forward. Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to remind members of my register of interest that show that I am still a councillor at Aberdeenshire Council. I would like to start my contribution today in congratulating the Scottish Government on producing a draft framework that has managed to unite so many organisations in their criticism of the Government for the complete lack of detail in the framework. Like so much produced by this devolved Government, it is full of headlines, no-one could disagree with, but lacking of any substance and I hope that the new version will address that. I would like to also thank the committee for the work done and the excellent report that they produced. It does not take you long to discover the first big issue, and that is the capacity of the current planning system. It was mentioned by Graham Day earlier. Local authorities have quite rightly bemoaned the lack of consultation and timing of those proposals. Coming at the same time as many of them are formulating the local development plans, those proposals have thrown into doubt. Those plans have caused a great deal of confusion and worry in our local Government colleagues. LDPs are sizeable documents that take years of consultation with our local communities. The measures outlined in the MPF4 have thrown much of that into doubt, with changes to regulations that will bring additional strains to our already under-resourced colleagues. The conclusion of the committee report highlights this as a key concern. It states that, even with additional funding, it is debatable whether that will be enough. Years of underfunding have left our councils in dire straits. That is a point that was well made by Megan Gallacher and Faisal Chowdry. Unlike Alex Rowley, who does not blame the minister, I blame the SNP Government. This is many years of underfunding to local government that has caused this. In the response from Homes for Scotland, it revealed the framework's failure to address the on-going resource and challenges within local authorities, while adding to the planning officer's workload with a raft of at times contradictory policies with no clear decision-making hierarchy. There is also a raft of new technical reports that we will have to take into account. Reduced budget and more work for our local authorities is a recipe for failure. The committee has also raised concerns about the lack of ambition in figures proposed as the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement. That is echoed by Homes for Scotland, who pointed out that the tool used for calculating that relies too heavily on past population trends and fails to identify the full range of housing needs, with many excluded from that count. That follows a recent report showing that the cumulative housing shortfall since the global financial crisis is now approaching 100,000. The committee report asked the Scottish Government to develop a tool that is more up-to-date and fit for all areas of Scotland, and I hope that the minister will address that in his closing up. There are also concerns from our rural communities. We heard that from Finlay Carson and also Gillian Martin. Sarah Madden, policy adviser on rural communities at Scottish Land and Estates, commented that we fully support the overarching ambition of MPF4, but unfortunately there is a large gap between that ambition and the detail in the framework. We understand that the planning system needs to take the climate crisis into account, but addressing that must not be to the detriment of rural development. Many have criticised MPF4 focus on urban environments and not understanding our rural environment. The planning process also has to take account of infrastructure planning, and the link between MPF4 and infrastructure planning is not clear. The Chartered Institute of Housing said, we also need to see land identification then matched with the appropriate infrastructure changes, and then we need to help planning authorities to realise the connection between national strategic plans and their own priorities. When we look at infrastructure changes, the framework has little red lines, strategic connections that are called. There is one between Inverness and Perth and one between Inverness and Aberdeen, so surely now the Government recognises that those connections are strategic and should therefore get moving with the full dualling of the A9 and A96. I must also mention and thank the Scottish Sports Association for their excellent submission to the consultation. You can see from the submission the opportunity that the framework can bring. I commend the Scottish Sports Association chief exec, Kim Atkinson, for highlighting how important sport and wellbeing can be in a planning framework. As the first line in their submission states, fundamentally sport is fun, but it is also the golden thread that connects health, communities and equalities. I will go further. Sport is one of our best forms of early intervention and prevention, and I would urge the Scottish Government to work with association and incorporate as much of their suggestions as possible into the MPF4. That will bring real-term benefits to Scotland's health and wellbeing. If the devolved Government is serious about digital, I would suggest full fibre connectivity into every new home that should be mandated. Throughout the past two years, when working from home has become the norm, we have seen the need for better digital infrastructure accelerated. While MPF4 goes some way to addressing that, it is arguable that, in the world that we now find ourselves in, it has to go further. I would ask the Government to look again at this as part of the amendments that it will bring forward for the finalised document. That is particularly important for our rural communities, such as my own. The MPF4 has much to say about my own area at the north-east. Once again, it focuses on the idea of a just transition that we all support, but we need more detail. More detail needs to be in the framework on how the area will support our drive to net zero. There is no mention of the proposed energy transition zone and no mention of the hydrogen production hub. This SNP-green Government is once again full of words but little action. This policy will not deliver for the people of rural Scotland. It will not deliver the homes that are needed. It will not deliver the environmental impacts that are promised. It does not link up vital infrastructure that we require. It places undue pressure on our local authorities that are facing continuous cuts from this Government. The framework needs a lot of work, and I encourage the Government to listen to all those who have contributed. I now call on Tom Arthur to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government up to eight minutes, please, minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking everyone for all of our contributions this afternoon. I also echo the thanks of many members, not just to the committees but to the committee clerks and their involvement in preparing the evidence and preparing the reports. This has been very informative. For the most part, it is certainly shown that the Parliament is at its best. The executive is proposing that the Parliament is scrutinising and providing a lot of thoughtful and considered input. I think that, although there have been many specific points that have been raised, which I will come to in a moment, none the less out of what has emerged from the debate is in concert with the point that I sought to make in my opening remarks, which is that there is a consensus on the vision of what it is that we are trying to do around NPF4. Central to that, of course, is climate change. We can recognise the climate emergency, we can recognise the crisis in biodiversity, we can recognise the need for a just transition, but what we will be judged upon is the actions that we take. Ultimately, in politics, we have to make decisions. One of the things that has emerged through this debate is that all the tensions arise quite properly as part of the planning process, where decisions have to be made, where we have to confront the reality of opportunity cost. If we want to do one thing, that perhaps precludes the possibility of doing another thing. Let me turn to some of the key themes that have emerged. Firstly, around process and how we will take this draft NPF forward, I want to be very clear that the maximum—I wonder pin my approach to this—is that that which is done well is done quickly enough. My priority is not meeting some artificial deadline, it is making sure that we get this NPF4 right. I am notwithstanding the final contribution from Mr Loneson, I want to build maximum consensus across the chamber. I want to be very clear at the outset that I am hoping to meet with any member of the chamber to discuss specific concerns around wording, policy or any aspect of the NPF4. I certainly will. I would like to thank the minister for a given way. It is just around the language that was mentioned earlier. Does he not agree with me that if it is too vague, there is no consistency across different planning authorities, and that will add to more appeals that will come through to the Scottish reporter? I welcome the intervention and the constructive point that the member is making. I want to come on to clarity. I want to be very clear that I am grateful for all the submissions that we have received from the public consultation. From memory, I think, a total of 757. That is going to take some time to work through and to consider it in detail and to consider it with the respect that those who have submitted those consultations deserve. That will inform how we go forward as far as our process is concerned. We will give all those points careful consideration, both general points around language or structure, but I am very grateful to those organisations and individuals who have submitted views on this—precise wording and detailed wording, because we have to get the wording right. We can be agreed on policy aspirations, but we need to make sure that the wording is clear. I take very seriously the points that have come from heads of planning and others who have asked for greater clarity. Equally, I want to ensure that planners feel empowered and to take the decisions that are necessary to realise the vision within the NPF4. We also have to recognise that the NPF4 cannot do everything. We have to also recognise the important role that planning authorities have in how they develop their own local development plans and, crucially, do so in partnership and in conjunction with their local communities. If there is really a point around for the party right of appeals, I was, of course, debated at length in the last chamber—the last Parliament, rather—and I do not want to rehearse those arguments. I thank the minister for taking intervention. He talked about communities and referred about appeals, but currently in Dumfries and Galloway, local council tax payers are subsidising wind farm developers to get their applications put through the council. The not-fit-for-purpose planning department in Dumfries and Galloway are increasingly not determining applications within timescales. They are then referred to the Scottish Government, which increasingly are approving applications against the wishes of local communities. How can the NPF4 improve that? Given the assumption that there will be more support for development for wind farms and more commercial planting, how does the NPF4 give proper consideration to the rights of local communities? First, on the point of communities, it is important to recognise that the overwhelming majority of planning decisions are taken by local communities. Just for an example, in 2020-21, approximately 25,000 applications were decided by local authorities. The number that was decided on appeal is 135. It is important to see that context. On the point about resourcing, let me come to that. I respect the autonomy of local authorities to set their own budget, but we recognise that, across the chamber, the clear necessity to ensure that our planning authorities are being resourced to achieve what it is that we want them to achieve through this. Where I have been able to take action and have taken action is on planning fees. On 1 April this month, planning fees, almost all planning fees increased by between 25 and 50 per cent. Early projections are suggesting that, for some local authorities, that could mean additional resources between £600,000 and more than £1 million. That is action that I have taken at the earliest opportunity to help with the resourcing of planning departments. Heads of planning is working to ensure that best practice is shared. I would like to, but I need to make some progress unfortunately. A specific point was raised around renewables. Of course, renewables are at the heart of our ambitions to meet our climate obligations by 2045. I recognise that we have to ensure that the ambition within NPF4 is commensurate with our ambitions around, for example, onshore wind and other renewables. The commentary that has been received on renewables and specifically on policies pertaining to renewables will be considered with great detail. Issue around monitoring and delivery has been raised as well. Let me say on delivery that we will publish a delivery plan along with the finalised version of NPF4. Although there is no statutory obligation for the delivery plan to go through the Parliament and to be voted by Parliament, I am welcome to appear before the committee, not just on NPF4 in its finalised form, but to take questions on the delivery plan. As I have stated previously, as has been recognised for some time, NPF4 is not a capital spend document. There are existing funding streams available, but what the delivery plan will do is to co-ordinate a lot of those funding streams and make clear how that resource links up to the ambitions within NPF4. The important thing to recognise is that the delivery plan will be a living document and will be continuously updated. It cannot be static just to sit on the self, so, as such, there will be an opportunity for continuous scrutiny through that. That will also provide a vehicle for monitoring. Other point that I want to raise before I conclude is on the issue of housing. I am very grateful to Homes for Scotland for its considered contribution throughout the consultation process, and I will give careful and detailed considerations to what it has submitted. The important point to recognise is that the maffler, which has been referred to, is a minimum. It is not a target, it is not a cap, it is a floor. There is an important role for local authorities in developing their local development plans to set out what housing land requirements are for their local area, and that can be informed by the most up-to-date data available. I apologise to members for not being able to address their points, but I want to reiterate that I am grateful for the considered contribution of all the committees of the members this afternoon. My door is open to any member in the chamber who wants to meet and discuss specific issues around NPF4. I believe that if we work together and get that shared ownership, that shared parliamentary support, we can deliver an NPF4 that is equal to the vision and ambition that is set out in it, which I think we all agree on. I call on Willie Coffey to wind up up to seven minutes, please, Mr Coffey. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be finally closing this important debate on behalf of the committee, and I have to reiterate my thanks to the committee members for their contribution, the clerking team and SPICE for their help along the way. Before reflecting on some of the excellent contributions made in the chamber this afternoon, I want to cover a few of the points in our report that the convener did not cover in her opening speech. First, the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods. The committee welcomes 20-minute neighbourhoods, and we note that stakeholders recognise that as a good planning concept. There are, undoubtedly, however, very significant challenges associated with delivering on 20-minute neighbourhoods, whether it is a new development, an existing urban setting, or rural or island context. Careful consideration will need to be given to what a 20-minute neighbourhood actually means and how it can be achieved in specific cases, in many of the members mentioned this this afternoon. Communities will need to be involved in shaping the places in which they are to live, and, among other things, there will need to be a focus on infrastructure and sustainable transport to deliver on those ambitions. The committee welcomes the minister's recognition of the importance of SDPR2 in delivering on 20-minute neighbourhoods. However, in the final version of NPF4, we would welcome further information from the Scottish Government on how it intends to deliver on 20-minute neighbourhoods across Scotland, and, in particular, in our rural and island areas, where the challenges of creating 20-minute neighbourhoods would appear to be most pronounced. A few words on the rejuvenation of our town centres too, if I may. Both in the committee's formal sessions and in the informal sessions held by the committee, members heard various concerns about the decline and dereliction within our high streets. I should say that it was not a universally negative picture, though, and the committee did hear about positive examples of town centre regeneration. In particular, the committee was impressed with the work being undertaken by celebrated constituency, which has driven community-led regeneration there, and our visit to Govan to hear about their regeneration plans was impressive. We need to give careful consideration about what we can do to affect the rejuvenation of our high streets, but we did not come to any conclusion on the best mechanism to achieve that, and that needs further work. We did, however, welcome the minister's commitment to effecting an improvement in our town centres through NPF4 and other initiatives, and we will be paying close attention to how that progresses. We are keen to see how NPF4 and any other powers that are available can be deployed effectively in order to improve the town centres and ensure that we will all return to that issue later on in the session. We also considered the minimum all-tenure housing land requirements in Markler, as we referred to in its set-out in the minimum number of housing units that local city region and national park authorities must plan, as a minimum strength emphasised by the minister earlier, to accommodate in future development plans. Each planning authority in Scotland has been presented with a minimum all-tenure housing land requirement, and each has been invited to present an alternative scenario if they wish to do so. Many of those we did hear from will raise concerns about those figures. Although we noted that those are merely minimums and not a cap, we were concerned that having minimum targets might limit ambition at a time when we need to be ambitious to meet Scotland's housing needs. Turning to some of the member's contributions, Gillian Martin reminded us that health and wellbeing must be a strategic priority with health and equality impact assessments at the heart of the process. Finlay Carson, on behalf of his committee, told us about the importance of community engagement and the continuing need to provide access to housing in rural and island settings in particular. Miles Briggs reminded us once again to pay more attention to the concerns of the renewable sector and the potential impact on future housing needs. Mark Griffin made some helpful points. He reiterated some of the concerns and renewables and how it will affect us delivering on the demand for housing in the future. Mark strengthened one or two of the messages that were commonly shared by members around the table. Graham Day, who made a significant contribution even in his short time at the committee, focused on the capacity within our planning of departments. That concern was expressed by a number of members around the chamber. Last but not least, Graham Simpson graciously accepted the blame for the debate that was taking place in the opening remarks. Of course, he strengthened the need for greater clarity and to take out some of the more woolly language that appeared in the report. Finally, Paul Sweeney mentioned an issue that is very close to the hearts of most of the members. When he asked us to consider the look and feel of shop fronts and high streets, it was also a great concern to the committee, but we did not come to any firm conclusions about how best to tackle that. Agreeing to the final version of NPF4 will by no means be the end of this journey that we are on. As a committee, we will continue to pay close attention to the contribution that NPF4 makes to affecting a change in Scotland's planning culture. As recognised by the convener in her opening remarks in the debate, one of the biggest challenges to the success of NPF4 will be in finding enough planners to help deliver it, and we expect to pursue that throughout the rest of the session. With that, I will draw my remarks to a close. The debate on national planning framework 4 is now time to move on to the next item of business. I would like to give my apologies to you, your deputies and my colleagues across the chamber, and everyone supporting this very vital debate this afternoon for being late at the start. I recognise the impact that is had on everyone, and I trust that it will not happen again. I appreciate your comments. As a matter of courtesy and respect to other members and to this Parliament, it is essential that members contributing to debates are in the chamber at the right time. Most business follows on from other business. Timings offer guidance to members, but it is really important that members follow proceedings closely to ensure that they are in the chamber when we would expect to avoid any delay to parliamentary business or any reduction in the parliamentary business that we are able to get through. I move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 4061 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on setting out changes to this week's business. I call on George Adam to move the motion. I rise to move and speak to the amendment to business motion in my name. This amendment should not be controversial. It simply reinstates a debate on long Covid that the Scottish Government proposed just three weeks ago when the parliamentary bureau last met. A debate that should not have been cancelled at the last minute. My colleague Dr Sandesh Gullhane has been calling for a long Covid strategy since before he was elected. He knows what he is talking about. He is seeing what is—I am very surprised to hear the scent from members of the Scottish National Party to the idea that Dr Sandesh Gullhane knows what he is talking about because he does. He is seeing firsthand what is happening in the lives of thousands of people who are suffering from long Covid. He also knows what is being done elsewhere in the United Kingdom and what is working. Before recess, I really believed that Thursday's debate was a promising start, a recognition that there is a serious problem, a recognition that this SNP Government has failed and the start of redressing that failure. Perhaps I should say more fool me. Maybe it is because there is an election in a couple of weeks time that there is to be an embargo on any criticism of the SNP Scottish Government in the Scottish Parliament. Our Scottish Parliament perhaps is to be sent into slumber without any controversy for fear that the SNP policy might be exposed for what it is. The Minister for Parliamentary Business George Adam says that a debate will happen when the Government has something to say. I conclude that they apparently have nothing to say on long Covid or, as he may wish to put it, they are not ready to say anything on long Covid. While ministerial statements are for Government announcements, we had a… Yes, I'll give way. Would the member agree with me that there was no clinics and no in-home support and with not a penny of the support fund having been spent, many long Covid sufferers are being left behind here? Would he also agree with me that it is sorely disappointing that the only debate on long Covid in this Parliament has been in opposition debate time, a Liberal Democrat business day last November? Stephen Kerr. I have every sympathy for what the member says. In fact, I believe in respect to the timetabling of business this week in this Parliament, her party has been shown a great discourtesy by the SNP. We had a scheduled debate on long Covid and that debate should go ahead for the sake of our constituents and their health concerns. This Parliament exists to scrutinise the executive. The SNP does not seem to get that, but that is what the purpose of this Parliament is. Perhaps if the SNP were less tenured, they might hear something in a debate. Ideas that they might wish to pursue. Frankly, this Parliament hardly needs more evidence that the SNP does not have answers. They are remarkably devoid of ideas, as we can all attest. The thousands of people suffering from long Covid must wait for concerted action, such as has been proposed by my colleague Dr Gullhane. I will give way. John Mason. Would the member accept that many people with long Covid, including my constituents, are being treated right now? Stephen Kerr. Well, I can only reply to the member about the post bag I have from those family members of those who are suffering from long Covid. They are concerned that little concerted treatment is available to them. Instead of having a debate those constituents and their families will have to wait. Those constituents suffering from the effects of long Covid, struggling with extreme tiredness, shortness of breath, problems of memory and concentration, heart palpitations, joint pain, their patients, their sacrifice is being made to stave the SNP ministers from a difficult afternoon in Parliament. From having to sit here and answer a few questions and listen, I will give way. I notice, Presiding Officer, one or two SNP MSPs pointing at themselves and saying that they have long Covid and they are being treated. It is all very well for a well-known MSP to be receiving treatment when they see their GP. I have to tell you, as a constituency member, that there are many of my constituents who are not being treated and who are looking for solutions from this Parliament. I will wind up, Presiding Officer. The SNP and the Greens will undoubtedly line up tonight to prevent an open debate on those who are suffering from long Covid and their treatment. It is disrespectful to those who are suffering from long Covid. It is disrespectful to the Scottish Parliament to be used to shield the SNP from criticism. I hope that I am wrong and the Minister will hear those arguments under Lent, but I fear on past form, Presiding Officer, that he will not. I felt that I had to explain this earlier today to everyone in the bureau in a very open, honest and transparent manner, but I will once again endeavour to articulate our position. It is not the position that Mr Kerr said where I said that there was nothing for the Government to say with nothing to say in the matter. Everyone who was in the room knew that is not what I said. What I did say, Presiding Officer, is that there are real people dealing with real issues at the end of this, and this Government needs to ensure that when it puts anything in front of this Parliament, it is strong enough and robust enough to deliver for these people and these real people dealing with these real issues in their lives. On the other matter, Presiding Officer, this debate has been postponed to enable another debate, the Scottish Government to provide Parliament with an update on Scotland's multi-sectorial one-health approach in addressing global health threat posed by AMR. That is on Thursday. An important topic, I am sure that every one of us in here would agree, but what I will say in answer to some of the rantings from Mr Kerr is that we intend to bring the long Covid debate back to Parliament after the local elections. It appears, Presiding Officer, that the Pantel season has started. This very short postponement will allow ministers to provide a fuller update on the progress as that will not be bound by pre-election period restrictions. The Scottish Government's intention is to provide Parliament with a detailed update of the outcome of the thorough planning process currently being undertaken with NHS boards to determine the first allocations of the long Covid support fund. I sincerely hope that that puts the minds of my Opposition colleagues at rest on this matter. I will inform the bureau when the long Covid debate can be brought to chamber in the normal manner. Point of order, Stephen Kerr. Those who are watching these proceedings, can you confirm that there is nothing about the pre-election restrictions that would prevent a debate on long Covid happening in this Parliament on Thursday? Pre-election announcements are a matter for the Government. We will now move on to put the question, which is the amendment 4061.1 in the name of Stephen Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 4061 in the name of George Adam on setting out changes to this week's business, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.