 the Humattan and Community Committee in 2018? Can I remind everyone present this morning to turn off your mobile phone, or at least put it on silent, and the meeting papers are given to members in digital formats tablets may be used by members during that meeting? No apologies have been received and, as our previous convener stood down last week, I'll chair the meeting until a new convener has been appointed. Jenny Gilruth and our former convener, Bob Doris, have left the committee to pursue new roles and I'm sure the committee will want to join me in thanking Jenny and Bob for all their hard work in what has been a very busy period for our committee, so we wish them well in their new roles. With their departures, we welcome James Dornan and Annabelle Ewing to the committee. For this first item, James Dornan and Annabelle Ewing will be invited to declare any interest relevant to the remit of the committee. Can I invite James Dornan to declare any relevant interests? I've no relevant interests to declare. Thank you and turn to Annabelle Ewing to declare any interests. Whether it's deemed to be relevant or not, it probably would be prudent for me to mention that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I hold a current practicing certificate, albeit that I'm not currently practicing. Thank you, Annabelle. That takes us on to agenda item 2, and for this item, the committee will choose a convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for nomination as convener of this committee. I invite nominations for this post. We don't have to have a seconder for that. Are we all agreed that James Dornan is the convener of the committee? On that note, I congratulate James Dornan and welcome him to his appointment. We are now going to swiftly swap seats. Thank you. Fair with this. Okay, thank you. For this agenda item 3, the committee is invited to consider where to take consideration of its work programme at agenda item 8 and its approach to the fuel poverty target definition and strategy Scotland bill in private. Are we all agreed? The committee will now take evidence on the draft affirmative statutory instrument entitled the regulation of social housing influence of local authority Scotland regulation 2018. I welcome to the meeting Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Yvonne Gavin, Housing Service Policy Unit and Kirsten Seminar Lefevre, solicitor of the Scottish Government. I hope I got that right. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve the instrument before the provisions can come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has reported on this instrument and did not draw it to the Parliament's attention on any of its opening of its reporting grounds. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. I am pleased to be here today to present the regulation of social housing influence of local authorities Scotland regulations, which completes the implementation of the policy in the housing amendment Scotland act 2018. First of all, I would like to convey my thanks to both this committee and to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee who have worked with the Government to expedite their scrutiny of the affirmative instrument before you today. I realise that this is unusual. However, your agreement to expedite this will enable the Economic Statistics Committee of the Office for National Statistics to take the regulations into account at its next meeting on 19 September, which we hope will lead to RSLs being reclassified back to the private sector very soon thereafter. Convener, we are all very well versed in our understanding of why the bill came about and the clear need for us to take action in order to ensure reclassification of RSLs to the private sector. It is crucial to enable our work towards delivering 50,000 new affordable homes during the lifetime of this Parliament to continue. The affirmative instrument before you today is the last step in working towards securing that reclassification. You will recall that section 9 of the act enables ministers to make regulations limiting or removing the influence that local authorities may exert over RSLs through any ability that they may have to appoint officers of the RSL or to exercise certain voting rights. The instrument specifies that local authorities may only nominate up to 24 per cent of board members of an RSL and that they may not exercise control over RSLs, for example through powers of veto over the RSL. At stage 2, the Government brought forward an amendment to introduce a sunset clause, which is a time limit of three years on ministers' powers to make regulations under section 9, meaning that powers will expire three years from the time that the act received royal assent, which was in July this year. We took that action, convener, to address concerns about the open-ended nature of the powers that this committee, the DPLRC and UK Finance raised during their scrutiny of the bill. I once again take the time to thank you for your agreement to expedite the committee's scrutiny of the instrument, and I move the motion to approve the regulations to limit the influence of local authorities over registered social landlords. In that case, I move on to agenda item 5. For this item, the committee will formally consider motion S5M-13767, calling for the committee to recommend approval of the draft registered social landlords repayment charges Scotland regulations 2018. Only the minister and members may speak in this debate, and I invite the ministers to speak to and move the motion S5M-13767. I formally move the motion, convener. No, convener. The question is that motion S5M-13767, in the name of the minister for local government, housing and planning, be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The committee will report on the outcome of this instrument shortly. I suspend the meeting to allow a change of witnesses. I move on to agenda item 6, the planning Scotland bill. This is day 1 of stage 2 of the planning bill. I welcome again the minister for local government, housing, Kevin Stewart and his accompanying officials to today's meeting. A number of MSPs who are not committee members but have lodged amendments to the bill will also be in attendance today, and they are very welcome. Thank you, convener. I am glad to see that there is a degree of consensus on the purpose of planning. Having considered the evidence given at stage 1, I agree that having a clear purpose could strengthen the reputation of planning and help it to be properly valued for the contribution that it makes to delivering better long-term outcomes for our communities, our economy and our environment. We are all agreed that the overarching purpose is to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest. Amendment 115 in my name would insert that into the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 and apply it to functions relating to the national planning framework and local development plans, covered by part 1A and part 2 of the 1997 act respectively. That is in contrast to the amendments lodged by Monica Lennon and Graham Simpson, each of which stand alone in the bill and apply to the whole planning system. I believe that it is better to focus on development plans as they are the basis for decision making. If the purpose was to apply to all functions of planning, it could undermine the primacy of the development plan and generate new grounds to challenge any planning decision. I remind the committee of the comments that Norman McLeod of our legal directorate made during my stage 1 evidence session on that matter. It would not be helpful to introduce a purpose that adds further bureaucracy to the system. For example, do we really want to see every decision even for an advertising sign or house extension, accompanied by a possibly lengthy explanation of how it is in the long-term public interest? I would suggest that that would be disproportionate. In terms of defining what is in the long-term public interest, amendment 115 mentions in particular contributing to sustainable development and achieving the national outcomes. I recognise that stakeholders in giving evidence to the committee have emphasised the importance of sustainable development. There is already a duty for development plans to contribute to sustainable development, and the amendment has built that into the purpose. Linked with that, new section 1A3 repeals section 3D and 3E of the 1997 act, as they are superseded by their inclusion in the new section 3ZA. The purpose has also been specifically linked with the national outcomes under the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. The national outcomes express all that the public sector aims to achieve in all areas of our lives, including the UN's sustainable development goals and the fulfilment of human rights. Under the Community Empowerment Act, all Scottish public bodies are required to have regard to the national outcomes in carrying out their functions. Therefore, including that in the purpose of planning will help to ensure that it is both comprehensive and consistent with wider frameworks. Amendment 115A from Mr Wightman would add specific sustainable development commitments to the proposed new section 3ZA, creating two different objectives for planning authorities and ministers in relation to development planning. Amendment 115 has sought to avoid by the incorporation of the existing sustainable development duty from sections 3D and 3F. Sustainable development goes to the heart of the planning system. I have no doubt that it will continue to be a key driver for the development of the national planning framework. However, I would prefer to keep the purpose clear and succinct rather than including a long list of documents and commitments that could change over time. The UN's sustainable development goals and the Keto Declaration form are part of our understanding of what sustainable development is. As I have said, the sustainable development goals are embedded in the national outcomes. I do not believe that it is helpful to add the specific references in the primary legislation and expect planning authorities to address multiple different goals that are, after all, seeking to achieve the same thing. Monica Lennon's amendment 103 would highlight health, environment, equality and human rights as aspects of the long-term public interest. As I have mentioned, the national outcomes mentioned to my amendment reflect the 17 United Nations sustainable development goals and refer to the fulfilment of human rights and cover all those aspects in a more global way. Thank you. Andy Wightman, to move and speak to amendment 115A and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. We agreed in the stage 1 report that we need a purpose of planning, and I am pleased that we have reached a broad consensus on that principle. However, I was clear at least at stage 1 and in dialogue with those who give evidence that a purpose of planning should be a standalone purpose to give some direction and some coherence to a system that has been in place now for 70 years. The amendment 115 does not do that. Instead, the purpose that is contained in 115 is not that of the planning system but is one related to the purpose to be achieved by ministers and planning authorities in exercising their functions, which is a subtly but importantly different concept. I heard the minister make the point that the rationale for that is to restrict the application of the purpose to the development planning process rather than the system as a whole. I hear what he says about evidence that was given by one of his officials from the legal directorate. However, I would say that we have a purpose of planning that is freestanding in many statutes in many other countries. Witnesses drew our attention to those in written evidence at stage 1. I am keen that we see a purpose of planning as a standalone purpose at the head of the bill, and therefore I will be supporting Graham Simpson's amendment number 5. I also feel that there is scope for expanding that, although I am open to further discussions on that. For the sake of argument, I will be supporting Monica Lennon's 103 as well. As far as the minister, Kevin Stewart's 115, is concerned, I have a problem in the sense that I think that the purpose should stand alone above it. However, I see that this is a useful section that could, in my view, be reframed as exercise of functions rather than purpose of planning. I am content that 3D is repealed. I am not sure about 3E because that is a power to issue guidance and I am not sure that it is replicated in 115. However, as I say, I am content to support 115 on the basis that, between now and stage 3, we have a standalone purpose and that we amend this section to be one that is about the exercise of functions in development planning. On my amendment in my name, 115A, it was put to us in evidence that the planning system in Scotland does not sit in isolation from the planning system across the UK, which does not exist in isolation from Europe or indeed the world. With the increasing global concerns around a number of areas that are well expressed in the sustainable development goals, there are increasingly international instruments that draw attention to the need to plan the use of land in ways that contribute to key international instruments. We had evidence that this would be a useful idea, and 115A is specifically targeted at ministers and planning authorities exercising their functions. It is not related to the purpose of planning, and that is why I have put it in as an amendment to 115 rather than a freestanding one. That is all that I have to say. I thank you very much, convener. Graham Simpson, you want to speak to amendment 5 and other amendments in the group. Convener, and welcome to your new role. Public apologies for being late, but here I am to speak to amendment 5. As Andy Wightman has already said, the committee looked at this very carefully. We concluded that there should be a purpose for planning that seems to have been widely accepted, and I am glad that the minister has put something forward. I have been on a bit of a journey, convener, on this one. I have started off including all kinds of things in the purpose for planning. I had a couple of quite long versions, and then I was persuaded that it is better to keep it simple. That is where I have ended up, to keep it simple. It could not really be any simpler. It is only one sentence. The purpose of the planning system is to manage the development and use of land in the best long-term public interest. I think that that works. I really do not think that we need to add to that. However, there are other amendments that we need to consider. Despite my view that we should keep things simple, I have had a good look at Kevin Stewart's amendment. There is nothing in it that jars with me, so I am quite happy to support that. Similarly, Mr Wightman seems to make sense, although we are getting very wordy here, but I would be happy to support Mr Wightman as well. Monica Lennon, I do have concerns with, because I am not really clear how we get equality in human rights into the planning system, and for that reason alone, I will not be supporting Monica Lennon's amendment. I will be pressing my own and supporting the others. Monica Lennon, you speak to amendment 103 and other amendments in the group. I begin by welcoming the minister's opening remarks. I would like to align myself with most of what Andy Wightman has said. I will return to Graham Simpson's point, but we have had a really good debate on the planning system and the scrutiny of the bill. I think that that has been excellent. It has been clear to us that everyone who engages in planning needs to know why we plan in the first place. That is why I believe that it is really important that we have a purpose for planning in the bill. I welcome the progress and the movement that has been made by the minister on that front, notwithstanding the comments of your legal adviser, Mr McLeod. We all agree that planning has to work for the best long-term public interest, but because planning has such a huge impact on the bill and the natural environment, it already has an impact on the health outcomes of the nation, it is really important to say in the bill what planning is for and why we are bothered at all. The consequences of bad planning are catastrophic in Scotland and globally. That is why my amendment 103 seeks to ensure that spatial planning in Scotland is used to improve health and environmental outcomes and promote equality and human rights. I would gently say to my colleague Graham Simpson that if we do not understand that planning absolutely has to seek to respect people's human rights and protect them and to embed equality into our decisions, we have a planning system that does not work for the vast majority of people. I think that we have heard a lot of evidence from communities and other organisations about why that really matters. I am pleased that, for my amendment, my attempt to enshrine the right to health as a core planning objective is supported by voluntary health Scotland, alcohol focused Scotland, nourished Scotland, obesity action Scotland and Samaritan Scotland. I set out in their joint statement to members ahead of this stage 2 debate. I accept that we have to maybe work on some of the language here around health and environmental outcomes. I hear what homes for Scotland are saying. They think that those words limit the scope of planning. I am open to what we can do to further stay economic in social outcomes, although that is embedded already. I am disappointed that Graham Simpson does not support that commitment to equality and human rights in the planning bill. We have some work to do, but I welcome the progress that is made by the Government. I think that the minister's amendment falls short because we really have to embed our ideals in terms of improving public health. We know that inequality is spatially embedded into our communities. We have a big opportunity to get that right, not just for today but for the long term. To ask the minister when he is responding to the points that he raised, if he could just clarify for me, because I thought that I had heard him say that UN sustainable development goals are actually embedded in national outcomes. Therefore, if that is the case, it would seem to me that any further reference would be unnecessary from a drafting perspective and, indeed, perhaps could risk inadvertently a confusion, so perhaps the minister could clarify that point. The minister will have a chance to wind up. To answer Ms Ewing's question first, yes, those goals are embedded in the national outcomes. Putting them in primary legislation when we have an ever-changing feast on those goals is difficult, I would say, and takes away from the current situation where we can change things quite easily. We would have to change primary legislation in order to keep up with the times. I think that Mr Whiteman's amendment, although I think that he means it to be helpful, is an impediment in terms of keeping up with those ever-changing situations when it comes to sustainable development and international treaty. What is the planning system for if it is not authorities' functions under the act? Some of that is not clear in terms of some of the other amendments, and that is why our amendment is specific. I do not want to reiterate certain points again and again, convener, but I think that in terms of what I have said about Mr McLeod's comments during stage 1 evidence, I do not think that it would be helpful to introduce a purpose that adds further bureaucracy to the system. I will give the example again and ask the question again. Do we really want to see every decision, even for very simple decisions, such as the advertising sign that I mentioned before, accompanied by a lengthy explanation of how it is in the long-term public interest? I do think that some of that is rather disproportionate. I would ask the committee to agree my amendment 115 and to reject the amendments in the name of Mr Whiteman, Mr Simpson and Ms Lennon. I will wind up the amendment 115A and inform us if you press a withdrawal. I will press 115A for the record. I hear the minister about international treaties. Those are not things that change very fast. The UN sustainable development goals took the best part of eight years to negotiate. We have had a planning bill once every decade or so. I do not anticipate that changing the planning system will require to be reformed on a regular basis. I do not think that the fact that UN treaties in themselves change or might be amended as any impediment to embedding two very important international instruments into the planning bill to make it very clear that, in Scotland, we recognise the validity of those instruments. I do not agree with the minister's characterisation that a stand-alone purpose, or the incorporation of the two international instruments in 115A, has any bearing whatsoever on development control or planning applications for advertising signs. In the stage 1 report and in the arguments that I and others have made, the purpose of planning is a purpose of the system. The merits of any planning application for an advertising sign or a bungler extension rests on the local development plan and material considerations in relationship to the planning authority that has control over that. I remain to be persuaded of that argument. I am happy to listen further as to whether there are real legal concerns, but I am not persuaded at the moment. In that case, given that you are pressing amendment, the question is that amendment 115A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Therefore, can I ask those who are in favour of the amendment to say aye? I am sure that they are. Amendment 115A, no abstentions. Minister, for you to press or withdraw amendment 115. I will press amendment 115, convener. I am going to have to get in place for you here. The question is that amendment 115A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No. Right. Okay. It goes to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 115A, please raise your hands. Those opposed. Thank you. Amendment 115A was agreed to by 621A. Amendment 115A, in the name of Graham Simpson, was already debated with amendment 115A. Graham, to move or not to move? To move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. Therefore, those in favour of amendment 5A, please raise your hands. Okay. Those opposed to amendment 115A. Amendment 5A, in the name of Monica Lennon, was already debated with amendment 115A. Monica Lennon, to move or not to move? Yes. In that case, the question is that amendment 103A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Can I ask those who are in favour of amendment 103A to raise their hands? Those opposed. Amendment 103A is defeated by 5 to 2. I call amendment 184, in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendment 158. Andy Wightman, to move amendment 184 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 184. The idea of having a chief planning officer has been around in professional planning circles. I understand that for quite a long time. The Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland produced a think piece in March 2017, a statutory chief planning officer in local authorities. That put the case further being one to mirror in some senses the role of a chief social worker, chief education officer and arguably chief planner in the Scottish Minister's own planning service. I am pleased that ministers accept that there is a case for having a chief planning officer. The purpose here is to elevate planning to its rightful place as a vital service within planning authorities. It is about leadership and performance. Currently, we have a heads of planning. Some of those are not required to be planners. In some instances, they are heads of service within local government that cover other matters such as building control, cemeteries and the like. A chief planning officer is about bringing and enhancing the professional standing of the planning profession within the planning authorities. Importantly, it is not about creating a new statutory role with a new salary or anything like that. The idea that has been put forward by the ITPI, which I have been persuaded of and which is reflected in my amendment, is to make sure that within every planning authority there is a person appointed from within the authority who is responsible for discharging the functions listed in section 1A. That will ensure that all planning authorities have someone who speaks for, very clearly and explicitly, planning and provides leadership on planning. I hear what Mr Wightman is saying. I wonder what his view would be of the following. Councils should be able to organise themselves as they see fit. All councils have someone who is in charge of planning. Sometimes they may have other briefs as well, but that has been their decision. I just think that this amendment will run the risk of telling councils how to organise themselves. Quite apart from what Mr Wightman says about not creating new roles, it might actually create new roles. If you have someone who is in charge of planning on something else, councils may feel the need to break that up and just have someone who is in charge of planning only. You could actually create new roles and add to cost. My basic point would be that councils should be able to run their affairs as they see fit and not be ordered to by us. I thank Mr Simpson for his comments. Local government and planning authorities sit within a statutory framework. There are chief social workers, returning officers and chief education officers. There are a number of statutory roles that local government fulfills—a myriad of them. There are a range of accountable officers, for example, that are all provided for in statute. I do not view that as telling local authorities or planning authorities what to do. I see that as a means of strengthening the planning system by having a clear focus for planning within the planning authority. I will conclude my remarks on the minister's amendment, which I do not think that we will be voting on for some weeks yet. It is too broad in its language. I am sure that the intention is similar, but I have been interested to hear from the minister why he chose to adopt a very broad framing of his amendment and was not persuaded of the rather more detailed amendment as advocated by RTPR. Minister, would you like to speak to amendment 158 and other amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. I am convinced that there is a strong case to establish a role of a statutory planning officer. That can re-establish the role of planners as leaders in the improvements, protection and development of good-quality places for people, a theme that has been central to our review of planning. Clearly, it is for local authorities to make their own decisions about staffing and resourcing, and I agree with Mr Simpson on the points that he has made. However, there is a need to raise the profile of the planning profession within authorities so that its relevance to a wide range of services is better understood. My amendment 158 requires each local authority to have a chief planning officer. It sets out their role in focusing on providing planning advice to the authority and requires authorities to be satisfied that their chief planning officer has appropriate qualifications and experience. It also allows Scottish ministers to provide guidance on qualifications and experience but does not oblige them to do so. The role will vary in different local authorities, so my amendment does not set out in detail the specific duties of the chief planning officer. It is designed to be broad and flexible so that the post is established but planning authorities can make decisions for themselves about how it will work in their own area. I believe that that is a proportionate approach. I am pleased that Andy Wightman agrees that that would be helpful. However, amendment 184 in Mr Wightman's name sets wider requirements on planning authorities and also on ministers. It goes further than is necessary or appropriate, in my opinion. Chief planning officers should of course engage in community planning, and we have already strengthened the link with the local development plan. There is no need to prescribe that as an additional duty. Amendment 184 would require ministers to prepare, consult on and adopt much more detailed guidance than that proposed in amendment 158, including on the outcomes to be achieved by the work of each authority's chief planning officer and on promoting awareness of the role. There has been some debate about centralisation during the course of the bill. I think that 184 would be centralising, which is something that I do not want to see. I do not agree that that should be centrally defined. That is why my amendment is designed to allow authorities to tailor the role as they see fit. Therefore, I will give way to Mr Simpson. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I wonder if he can just tell us in terms of his own amendment what would change. As I said earlier, we have councils that are responsible for planning but can also be responsible for other areas. Is his amendment seeking to change that, or can councils basically leave things as they are? My amendment sets out the role of focusing on planning advice to the authority and requires authorities to be satisfied that their chief planning officer has appropriate qualifications and experience. It allows us to provide guidance and qualifications and experience, but it does not oblige us to do so. Mr Simpson has made a point about the freedom of local authorities to do what they need to do in those regards, and I think that that is the right way forward. If we accept amendment 184 of Mr Wightman's, that is too prescriptive and would deny the local authorities freedom. Therefore, convener, I would ask the committee to support amendment 158 in my name and ask Mr Wightman to withdraw amendment 184. I fully support Andy Wightman's amendment, and I do regret that the minister's amendment is rather weak. I think that we have to put this into context of what has been happening to local authorities, particularly to planning departments. I will declare that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, but I think that we have seen around a 23 per cent reduction in the planning workforce in the last six years show in Scotland's councils. We know about the budget pressures that will rehearse, but because I think that people have not had a clear understanding of the purpose of planning, we have not joined up thinking that corporate working. We have seen a diminishing workforce across Scotland's councils. I was just trying to pull up the RTPI, the Royal Town Planning Institute, published some figures UK-wide over the summer, a survey of their members, but for Scotland that was looking at, is there a head of planning in the top tiers of local government, and the figure for the UK was that the vast majority of councils had planned lower down their tiers of 83 per cent, but that figure is 94 per cent in Scotland. I do not see this about dictating to councils what they have to do, but we are serious about the purpose of planning and its statutory function. It has to be properly resourced. It has to have leadership, and that is why I think that Andy Wightman's amendment is on the money, so I will be supporting Andy's amendment. I will pick up in the comments that have been made already. It seems to me that it would be important to ensure that, on the one hand, although Mr Stewart's amendment does, which is to require there to be a chief planning officer, none the less, it is important to afford each local authority the ability to, as the minister said, tailor what that role is vis-à-vis their planning operations. That is very important, and it respects the role of local authorities, which I think that all members want to see respected. Andy, do you want to wind up? We differ in degree, obviously. I do not accept the argument that this is overprescriptive or limiting planning authorities' freedom to organise things the way they want to. We have one planning system in Scotland, and I think that we need a little bit more prescription about the role of the chief planning officer to ensure that there is a certain minimum standards and responsibilities and functions being carried out by that person uniformly across Scotland because we have one planning system. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there might be some of the detail that is spelt out in 184 that is redundant or goes too far, and I am happy to have that conversation between stage 2 and stage 3. We will have that conversation because we are all agreed that there shall be an amendment. We are not all agreed, but I think that there is broad agreement that there shall be a chief planning officer. I am moving amendment 184. The question is then that amendment 184 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Can I ask those who are in favour of amendment 184 to show their hands? Those opposed? Defeated by 5 to 2. We now move on to national planning framework. Members will see that we have a very big group of amendments in the national planning framework to facilitate debate. This group has been divided into five subgroups. Debate will be structured around these subgroups when that is all completed, we will then move to disposing of amendments as normal. For each subgroup, I will call those who have amendments in the subgroup to speak. Members will be called in the order in which their amendments appear as usual. There will then be the opportunity for any other member who wishes to speak on the subgroup to do so. Finally, if he has not already been called, I will give the minister an opportunity to comment on the amendments in each subgroup. Members should not move, press or withdraw their amendments unless I indicate to them that they should do so. I draw members' attention to information about pre-emptions that are under groupings. I will remind members about pre-emptions when we reach the amendments in question. I also point out that amendments 38 and 39 both preempt amendments 6. That information was omitted in error from the groupings document. We move to the debate on the first subgroup on the forum and content of the national planning framework. I call amendment 185, in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton. Good morning, convener, and good morning to the minister and colleagues as well. I appreciate that I am something of an interloper in this committee, but I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to those members of the committee who have included me in discussions around the foothills of this bill and in explaining a lot of its contents to me as well, so I am very grateful for that. Members will remember that at stage 1, my party was the only party to oppose this bill at stage 1. That was principally behind because of the reasoning for my amendment 185. That is because we believe that, as it is worded right now, the preeminence of the national planning framework is here to bolster the powers of ministers. If you read what it attempts to repeal from the 1997 Town and County Planning Act in respect of the wording in section 3A subsection 2 around the national planning framework, we delete a set of words that say that, in broad terms, it is how Scottish ministers consider that the development and use of land could and should occur. It deletes that wording and replaces it with a manifestation that this is really how ministerial policy will be put into action. In discussion with my council group leaders around the country, we could not, as liberals in good conscience, support such a movement of power to the centre. The minister might argue that this is about phrasing and semantics, but it sets the tone for this entire bill, which we think unnecessarily and disproportionately empowers ministers at the expense of planning authorities. Our belief is that, should we pass the bill unamended, it would see councils relegated to the role of consultees. I was very grateful and gratified to hear the minister say that he did not want to see centralisation in this bill, so I hope that he and Government members will support amendment 185, which I move in my name. While I have the floor convener, I also speak to amendment 116e, which is a very similar amendment based on the Government's proposed amendment in that section. I would also like to throw my party support, although we have no vote at this stage, behind amendments 38 and 39, in the name of Graham Simpson, to better empower the Scottish Parliament and Andy Wightman 39A and 39B in respect of the same extending consultation periods for the Scottish Parliament. With that, I will end my remarks. Graham Simpson, I now speak to amendment 30 and other amendments in the sector. Thank you, convener. I have a few in this section, which are 30, 31, 116, 0 and 116, S. If you will bear with me, I will try not to take too long, but I will address each of them. On amendment 30, we are saying that the national planning framework should define regional housing targets. Since this is a planning bill, the amendment focuses on targets of the use of land for housing. As there are no formally defined regions, the amendment uses the word areas instead. Homes for Scotland have backed this amendment. In their view, if the statutory development plan for an area is to comprise of two components, the NPF and the local development plan, then clarity must be provided on the respective role of each. They say that my amendment 30 helps to achieve that clarity. On amendment 31, the national planning framework should be more fully integrated with wider Government policies and strategies. The amendment extends the obligation to include the national transport strategy, strategic transport projects review, land use strategy, national marine plan, infrastructure investment plan, climate change programme and the national housing strategy and action plan. For me, it is just about being joined up. 1160, this is an amendment to another amendment, which we have not discussed yet, 1160. Seeing as I have the floor, I will address it. Again, this sets targets for the use of land in different areas of Scotland for housing. We have a housing crisis, the national planning framework. We believe that it should include targets for land set aside for house building. We need to increase house building. We see that there is a role for Government in this. I do hear what Alex Cole-Hamilton is saying on centralisation, but I think that it will be remiss of any Government not to set housing targets. Again, this amendment is supported by Homes for Scotland. Amendment 116S says that the national planning framework must be prepared with due regard to other relevant policies and strategies. I have covered that one previously, so I promised not to speak for too long, but if I can just address 116S in the name of Kevin Stewart, it would sweep away other amendments. I think that that is a positive amendment, so I would probably not be minded to support 116S, but I will be moving all the other amendments that I have spoken to. Monica Lennon, to speak to amendment 104 and other amendments in the subgroup. I have already been quite clear in my proposed purpose of planning that the planning system has the potential to have a positive impact on health outcomes across Scotland. That can only be realised if we embed that idea in every stage of decision-making and planning, the idea that people's health is taken into account during the development of the national planning framework and local development plans and individual development levels. That amendment would intend to ensure that the consideration of health effects of any national development is enshrined in the development of the national planning framework and taken into account at that level, so I will be moving that amendment. If I can turn to amendment 83A, I think that we are still on the same group. Amendment 83A seeks to amend amendment 83 in the name of Andy Wightman. We heard from a gender at stage 1 in the written evidence committee that they believed that gender equality had been inadequately embedded into the planning process. We have on-going discussions about the relevance of equality to planning. I do not want to rehearse all those arguments here, but I appreciate that some members still need to be convinced. That is why we have to have those things very clearly in the bill. I will support Andy Wightman's amendment 83A. My minor suggested changes would seek the addition of and equality in addition to gender, and that would make it much more explicit that the national planning framework should be required to set out how it will promote and take account of gender equality in Scotland rather than reporting on how the policies and proposals in the national planning framework simply relate to gender. I know that the minister has committed to having further discussions with and gender and other equality groups, and I look forward to hearing how that is going. I will be moving amendment 83A. Kenneth Gibson to speak to the amendment. Of course, there is a huge suite of other amendments in this subgroup. Thank you. Sorry, I was so excited that it is possible to speak in this bill. I jumped in before you there, convener. Just that the 116A and 116B are, of course, belt and braces amendments if 116 is passed, but 116, 116, 116A, 116B are amendments to ensure the provision of housing for older and disabled people as considered the national planning framework. Amendment 167 seeks to amend section 3A3 of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 to include a specific statement in the NPF focusing on housing priorities in relation to older people and disabled people to help to meet their housing needs with 116A seeking to include what the Scottish ministers consider to be the priorities for housing suitable for older people and disabled people. The NPF has got a strategic role to play in the development and use of land in Scotland and in the setting of national infrastructure priorities. That should include setting clear national targets for delivering older people's and disabled people's housing, which would be most effective and deliver the best outcomes. Amendments 116, 167 and 116A address the housing challenges arising from the demographic of Scotland, a rapidly ageing population, which underlines the need to invest in housing for older and disabled people. Convener, Scotland's population of older people is projected to increase significantly with a number of people aged 65 and over, expected to rise by 59 per cent to £1.5 million by 2039 and many will be informed and have disabilities. There is therefore a pressing requirement to ensure that housing needs of older people and disabled people are explicitly recognised within the planning system. Housing is a key role to play in allowing older people and disabled people to live independently, healthy and active lives at home for as long as possible, and investment in housing will save resources that would otherwise be spent in health and social care. It helps to tackle loneliness and isolation and contribute to greater health and wellbeing. Amendments 167 and 116A would ensure that a strategic co-ordinated national approach is taken to address the housing needs of older and disabled people and ensure that planning authorities, developers, the third sector and other key agencies take a consistent approach. Without a strategic approach, there is a real risk that the housing needs of Scotland's ageing population will go unmet, with significant consequences for older people and disabled people in society as a whole. Planning policy must anticipate the long-term needs of Scotland's ageing population and plan now to deliver different types, tenure and size of homes urgently required in the future. Homes specifically adaptive are people living with dementia, people with mobility issues, people with disabilities and people with a sensory impairment. Amendments 168 and 116B would provide national targets and the NPF to address the housing needs of older and disabled people, including the adaption of existing and the building of new housing, setting clear targets for the provision of older people's housing will help us to prove the provision. The case for national targets is further underlined by the increase in housing needs of single older people projected to rise by 45 per cent to almost half a million by 2039. Those amendments are being moved in order that society can help to address those issues. Rhoda Grant, to speak to amendment 211 and other amendments in subgroup. Thank you, convener. I want to speak to my amendments 211, 212, 213, 116R, 116T and 116U. I was brought up in a small community in Westeros and over the years I've watched the fortunes of that part of the region change, with population decline being a constant challenge. It was therefore with some horror that I read a recent report from the James Hutton Institute commissioned by the Scottish Government, and it states that in areas like the one in which I was brought up, there is a risk of losing over a quarter of their already reduced population by 2046, and that will threaten their very existence. However, that is not just a Highlands and Islands challenge, it also impacts on the southern uplands and indeed many parts of rural Scotland. What is to be our response as a society and as a Parliament? Past planning systems and land use policy have caused some of this decline, and therefore we must have something to offer by way of a solution towards those challenges that we face. Our rural areas provide huge benefits for Scotland places where people in Scotland love to visit because it's beautiful. However, as well as having nice countryside and wild places for people to visit, we surely want to visit living places and vibrant communities with distinct culture and traditions. It's time to give the people dimension of the countryside greater status in building future planning policy, not just to retain but to restore the population. It's people that are the lifeblood of these places. The challenge is to ensure that Scotland's planning system facilitates rural repopulation and balances sustainable economic development with the protection of our natural heritage. The planning bill offers an important opportunity to make sure that we focus on the real challenges of our rural areas and that those amendments seek to take this opportunity. Amendment 211 is perhaps quite modest in scope in relation to those matters, but it's an important building block towards ensuring that the planning system enables Scotland's rural places and communities to thrive and prosper. It requires that Scottish ministers must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the population of rural areas increases and that resettlement is encouraged in rural areas that have become depopulated. It asks for nothing more than ministers consider the desirability of those objectives when preparing the national planning framework. By placing such a duty on ministers on the face of the bill, it sends an important signal that rural repopulation is a matter that the Parliament requires ministers to consider seriously in framing future planning policy. It's also a signal that sustainable development of Scotland's rural places is a policy priority shared by all. Amendment 212 is designed to assist in the development of a national planning framework through the production of maps and associated materials relating to no longer inhabited human settlements. The purpose of those maps will show where Scotland's rural areas' human settlements previously existed, thereby providing an indication where rural repopulation may be decidable through resettlement as expressed in local development plans and local place plans. I thank Rhodo Grant for taking the intervention. When I read this particular amendment, I must admit that I was slightly baffled as to the intention. It asks for the national planning framework to contain maps, diagrams, illustrations of no longer inhabited human settlement. The first question that rose in my mind and others is, how far do you want to go back? Do we go back to Roman times, pre-Roman times? I just wonder what you're trying to achieve here because it could create an enormous amount of work if we're going back as far as that. We wouldn't be going back as far as that, but anyone who goes into our countryside and certainly the areas that I cover in my region will be very aware of villages that have been there. You can see the houses and uninhabited whole communities that have disappeared. I would suggest that we go back to some of the areas around the clearances that were cleared to make way for sheep, but certainly not much further back than that, but there are communities that were vibrant and could be vibrant again in our glens. It would be important to indicate—and, of course, part of this is in the plan, so you would have to consult to make sure that that was a desirable outcome for those communities. I think that it's important that local people, those people who are still there, are involved in that. Indeed, some of the people that were in those communities previously or had families in those communities could be part of that consultation to make sure that those areas became part of the local plan and the national plan. Is that it? Have you finished working on it? No, I'm not. I'll make a couple more comments. Just to confirm that the criteria for creating the maps in associated material would be developed after public consultation, so that would be consulted on. It's detailed in my amendment 216, which will come to later. The maps for no longer inhabited human settlements will therefore complement Scotland's network of 42 wild land maps covering 3.7 million acres by also representing a material consideration in relation to planning decisions. The crofting community where I was raised was surrounded by so-called wild land. However, much of it was actively crafted and stopped with sheep in the summer. It may be right that we have maps of wild land, but I would have thought that it could also be right that we would map our human heritage, so that we understand the landscapes that we see today were once home to families and entire communities. My hope is that those places may once again ring to the voices of children playing in that wonderful environment, which will not in any way compromise the scenic characteristics. The maps that I envisage would bring to life the understanding of not only what our landscape's history has been but what its future might be and the future in which people and nature coexist to their mutual benefit. Amendment 213 is intended to give Scottish ministers the option when preparing the national planning framework to assess existing legislation or national strategies that could be amended to improve their impact on delivering the planning system's outcomes. In doing so, it provides an opportunity for joining a planning system with existing legislation and national strategies to produce a more cohesive policy framework, and it is intended to offer flexibility and to be of assistance to ministers. If amendment 116 is approved, then amendments 116 are 116-T and 116-U simply repeat amendments 211, 212 and 213. I am hedging my bets against that. I will say nothing more, but when the time comes, I hope to move those amendments. Andy Wightman to speak to amendments 83 and other amendments in support group. I thank you very much, convener. This group of amendments includes 116, which of course deletes and replaces the whole of section 1. There are a lot of amendments to section 1, which we will be getting through, some of which I support and some of which I don't. Of course, we won't vote on 116 until we've dealt with all the other amendments to section 1, and indeed all those amendments to section 11 are 6. If I can start with Alex Cole-Hamilton's 185, I can assure him that the bill will be amended by the time of stage 3. I understand that I have some sympathy with the Liberals' position on this, but I think their view on section 382 of the bill is a little misplaced. We are really talking about an alternative wording. I think that there is broad agreement that there should be a national planning framework. Prevision was made in 2006 for that to be the case, and there are subsequent amendments being taken forward in this bill in regard to the national planning framework. We are all agreed on that. If the Liberals are not, it would be useful to hear that they are not. The question is, what is the national planning framework to do? As it exists in the 97 act, at the moment it describes it as to be something that sets out in broad terms how the Scottish ministers considered that the development and use of land could and should occur. The bill deletes those words and says that the national planning framework is to set out the Scottish ministers' policies and proposals for the development and use of land. I think that is a more elegant form of words. I think that it most succinctly captures what the national planning framework is and I am perfectly content with it. I do not think that it has some of the ulterior motives that Alex Cole-Hamilton attributes to it. I agree with amendments 30.104.16.7.31.21.1, and particularly I want to draw members' attention to Monica Lennon's amendment 104, which is part of a suite of amendments seeking to incorporate health more centrally in the planning system. I think that this is an incredibly important proposition. I am aware that there may be some concerns around that, and I am very open to having conversations about that. However, it has echoes of the genesis of the town, country planning system in 1947. Soon after the war, the Scottish office as was then set up the Scottish Home and Health Department. It was intentional that home and health be linked because there was a wide awareness that the living conditions of the people across the United Kingdom were substantially suboptimal. The war had drained the country, and in the process of reconstruction people's health was a vital interest. People's health was materially impacted upon by the environment in which they live and therefore the environment that is substantially designed and planned for by people. Indeed, one of the first people to work in the Scottish Home and Health Department in advancing that remit was the planner Ian McCarg, who went on to become an internationally renowned planner, who founded the School of Landscape Architecture in Pennsylvania. I think that this is a really important debate, especially as we talk about the increasing pressures on the health service and the need to ensure that people are more healthy and that, therefore, we reduce pressures on the national health service and create a more healthy population. I think that that is incredibly important. I also, in terms of Rhoda Grant's amendment 2.1.1, which is again part of a suite of amendments, I think that this is very, very interesting and we heard evidence brought forward by Community Land Scotland in this regard. I think that it is quite a departure and I think that it is very healthy that the planning system should begin to reflect a little bit about decisions that were made in the past, not the long past, not in Roman times, but in the past about the use of land prior to the introduction of the formal town-country planning system in 1947 and that considerations about how land was used in 1870, 1890, 1920, 1940, 1940, 1950, 1960 should inform our view on how land should be developed in the future. I think that the amendments that Rhoda Grant has brought forward merely make sure that the information that is necessary to take that view is incorporated at the outset. Moving on to amendment 83 in my name, this is one again of a series of amendments that crop up in different parts of the bill and that is a series of amendments to, respectively, the national planning framework, strategic development plans and local development plans, such that those plans, and in this instance 83 specifically the national planning framework, include a statement setting out how the plans and policies in the plan will take account of an impact upon gender equality. I thank Monica Lennon for a helpful amendment 83 clarifying that this is indeed about gender equality. Amendment 116f replicates this. Now, academic research has shown that the design and planning of the built environment is and can be very heavily gendered, with a disproportionate negative impact on women and girls. There are very good examples across Europe. I would highlight the example of the city of Vienna in Austria that is doing quite remarkable and interesting work in this area. Of course, this is evolving practice, and I think that the fact that we know through academic research that the planning system is gendered and therefore that has an impact on equalities should be reflected in our laws around planning to ensure that there is a statement, and the amendment calls for no more than a statement setting out how the plans and policies in these areas will take account of gender equality. Amendment 213f, I was awaiting Rhoda Grant's explanation of this, and I confess that I did not really understand what it was about. I am content with the amendment 213f, as long as it is very clear that it merely is an option for ministers that the framework may contain. I agree that the national planning framework in drawing it up will engage questions about the use of land to which other strategies and other bits of legislation have an impact. It is appropriate to draw Parliament's attention and the people of Scotland's attention to the fact that we may need some changes in bits of legislation or amend various strategies in order to achieve the goals that set out in the national planning framework. I think that it would be helpful to have that drawn to attention in the draft framework. Amendment 116f, which is a substantive amendment, I will not be supporting this for two reasons. First, it deletes the entirety of section 1 together with any amendments that have been made. That, to an extent, is countered by the fact that people have taken out insurance policies on that in relation to a long list of amendments to section 116. However, more substantively, section 116 contains proposals for how the function of current strategic development planning might be taken forward in future. In other words, it is actually taking in the subject matter of section 1 and section 2. Those specific proposals subordinate strategic planning to any input to national planning. We will talk more about that when we come to section 2 and amendments to it. However, as I believe and will argue that we should be retaining the current framework for strategic planning, I cannot vote for an amendment that presumes to remove it. Finally, amendment 155, which is preempted by amendment 48, forms part of a series of amendments designed to retain strategic development plans, so I will be voting against amendment 155. John Finnie, to speak to amendment 160 and other amendments in subgroup. Thank you, convener, and I thank your clafking staff for their assistance, too. My colleague Andy Wightman spoke and others, so I will restrict my comment to this. I have other amendments at future dates. This particular amendment asks that the framework have regard to the desirability of preserving disused railway infrastructure for the purpose of ensuring its availability for future possible public transport requirements. At the moment, the National Plaming Framework, which we are told is a strategy for all of Scotland, makes reference to supporting change in areas where in the past there has been a legacy of decline. It also talks about bringing together our plans and strategies in economic development, regeneration energy, environment, climate change and transport. There are also references in there to the construction of new and or upgraded rail. We track exceeding eight kilometres connecting existing networks to the freight handling facility. Unless we can secure that, therefore the desirability of the preservation of it, there will be challenges with new and upgraded track. The second page of the framework talks about planning outcomes. I am not going to read the entire page, but I will quickly go across the four columns that are there. The first one being planning makes Scotland a successful and sustainable place, supporting sustainable economic growth and regeneration, and the creation of well-designed places. If this were to take place, then it certainly meets that criteria. The next one is about low-carbon, and of course there are opportunities there. The next category is planning makes Scotland a natural, resilient place, helping to protect and enhance our natural and cultural assets and facilitating their sustainable use. Again, that would meet that. The final one in that particular section is planning makes Scotland a connected place, supporting better transport. In the wider considerations, if we are genuinely wanting to see a move from road to rail for passengers and from road to rail for freight, we need to maintain the infrastructure that is potentially in this amendment that will play its part in it. Claudia Beamish should speak to amendments 214 and other amendments. Thank you, convener, and good morning to colleagues and to the minister. My amendment 214 requires the national planning framework to have regard for any infrastructure investment plan published by Scottish ministers and to include a statement setting out the ways in which the plan has taken into account in preparing the framework. The existing IIP sets out priorities for investment and a long-term strategy for the development of public infrastructure in Scotland and is designed to be complementary to the budget. My amendment is a probing amendment, and I welcome a comment from the Scottish Government Minister and any other members of the committee. I would like to highlight that, on 30 July of this year, Cabinet Secretary Rosanna Cunningham said in a letter to the Eclair Committee that the Scottish Government is committed to supporting the delivery of low-carbon infrastructure as a vital part of our long-term transition to a carbon neutral Scotland. A current IIP plan published in December 2015 supports Scotland's climate change goals by making low-carbon considerations one of the guiding principles upon which investments are prioritised. She draws to a close by saying that the current plan includes a range of long-term low-carbon commitments such as energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project, broadband coverage and rail electrification, and future refreshers of the plan will take into account the requirements of Scotland's climate change legislation at that point in time. In my amendment, the IIP is an important document in terms of climate change focus, but I am aware of its current scope that goes beyond infrastructure. The intention behind the amendment is to give the IIP statutory weight and to stress its link with the planning system, but an amendment directly doing this may restrict the document and so would require a new section setting out the form and content of the IIP and stipulations on how it is prepared, and I welcome further discussion on this. However, this amendment is drafted to give the IIP some statutory weight and the statement detailing the national performance framework's compatibility with the IIP ensures a joined-up approach. This will bring benefits for a long-term vision, a cross-portfolio awareness in my view, and a greater consistency in linking the low-carbon agenda with financial budgets and capital investment. My amendment, like with others, 116V has the same effect and was submitted as a contingency to the passing of amendment 116. I convene it with your forbearance. Am I allowed to very briefly comment on other amendments in the group or is that not in the subgroup? I would like to speak in support of Rhoda Grant's amendments 211 and others that she has highlighted in the group and to reinforce what she stressed about the people's dimension to rural planning. There are real challenges for rural regeneration, and those amendments in my view could contribute to that very important cause for rural people. They support real sustainable development in my view across rural Scotland, not just in the Highlands but in my region of South Scotland as well. I should perhaps declare an interest in speaking about 83 Monica Lennon's amendment because I've just become convener of the cross-party group for men's violence against women and children. I think that that should be perhaps recorded in the report. I want to speak in support of my colleague Monica Lennon's amendment on gender equality in the planning system. In this day and age, we need to take these things into account. The points were eloquently made by Monica Lennon and Andy Wightman, so I will leave it at that. Finally, I would like to speak in support of John Finnie's amendment having taken quite a strong interest in rail issues, and there are a number of places where those links need to be maintained very carefully. I think that to record that in recognition of both low-carbon and also connectivity are very important. Before I let the minister in to speak to amendment 116 and others, just to say that, after this subgroup, we are going to have a five-minute break. Minister, would you like to speak to amendment 116? Convener, I'm glad that we're having a break after this one. Can I start off by apologising to you, convener, and to the members of the committee for creating a monster group with the addition of amendment 16? I heard Mr Simpson's fears, but very few amendments have been removed by amendment 116 that haven't been repeated as amendments to it. That reflects the position created by the bill as introduced, plus amendment proposed by the Government, which is much easier to read. In proposing further amendments to the provisions in the bill, which amend the 1997 act, we decided that we'd reached a point where it would be clearer to rewrite the whole piece. However, I appreciate that that causes some complication in managing some of the other amendments. I recognise that members have in many cases put forward parallel proposals in the current version of the bill and for amendment 116. I'll address each pair of amendments together. I'll speak to the relevant parts of amendment 116 in relation to each subgroup, convener. The new section 3A in amendment 116 covers the form and content of the national planning framework, which remains largely unchanged in the bill. It adds a requirement to include a statement of what land the Scottish ministers consider requires to be made available for housing. In addition, subsection 6 ensures that Scottish ministers are not prevented from setting out policies beyond the national planning framework. That is an important clarification, as it would not be reasonable to expect Parliament to approve every planning policy that the Scottish Government produces. I know that we will have a fuller debate on strategic planning, as Mr Wightman mentioned in a later group. However, at this stage, I think that it's important to explain more about our thinking on this in amendment 116, as this is where we have addressed the topic. I've followed closely the debate about strategic development planning in Scotland. I remain of the view that existing arrangements need to be updated if strategic planning is to realise its full potential. We must be clear that fulfilling timescales and producing new plans every five years is not enough to make a real difference to the lives of people living within the four city regions. It also means very little to people living in the rest of Scotland. My amendment therefore introduces a new duty for strategic planning, which moves away from procedure, extends to all parts of Scotland and re-establishes strategic planning as a more visionary and influential pursuit. Section 3AE introduces a new duty for the Scottish ministers to have regard to strategic development reports in preparing, revising or amending the national planning framework. That is a significant new addition that reflects the importance that the Scottish Government attaches to strategic planning and our intention to work collaboratively. Section 3AH sets out the requirement on planning authorities to produce those strategic development reports, which include a spatial strategy. That would be a significant change from text-heavy-lengthy plans that largely repeat national policy. The duty is also flexible. It does not set a fixed timescale and there is no prescription of the governance or administrative arrangements required and it does not dictate which authorities should work together. That is a significant improvement on what we have in existing legislation. Planning authorities can address strategic planning in a way that reflects the value that it can add rather than because they have to. The amendment also makes provision for consultation on the strategic development report. Subsection 8 of 3AH sets out the definition of strategic development. Strategic development may or may not extend across administrative boundary but will have an impact in more than one planning authority area. That will be open for planning authorities and their partners to define. I will now turn to the amendments that relate to section 3AH. In amendments 184 and 116e Alex Cole-Hamilton has proposed retaining the existing description of the national planning framework, which does not include Scottish planning policy. When we brought forward the bill, we explained our reasons for making a change. It could play a significant role in streamlining the planning system by removing duplication between different tiers of the statutory development plan. There was support for that throughout our consultation and the committee agreed that that was a sensible idea. At present, each and every local development plan includes a set of policies. Routinely, those policies simply restate the terms of the Scottish planning policy. That does not add value. Rather than pages and pages of policy wording, I would much prefer to see a clear local spatial strategy to guide future development. Authorities will be able to bring forward tailored local policies where there is a clear justification to do so. That would be explored and tested at the gate check stage. We will restructure our existing policy framework so that it acknowledges significant differences between planning matters in different areas. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 185. The remainder of the amendments in this group seek to add specific issues to what the national planning framework must contain or take into account. I cannot support most of those amendments. It is not that the issues are not important, but that they are all already covered in the framework or the Scottish planning policy that will in future be incorporated into it. My aims here are to ensure that we do not duplicate existing requirements and to avoid the primary legislation becoming overly prescriptive. Housing is clearly key to development planning. Amendment 116 explicitly states that the NPF must set out a statement of housing land requirements. We are reviewing the methodology for addressing this, but have not yet determined whether targets are the most appropriate approach. Other options might include, for example, setting out estimates, aspirations, minimum requirements or a range of those. There could be tensions if the national planning framework went too far in imposing targets for housing in local areas, so that needs careful consideration. I therefore do not support Graham Simpson's or Alexander Stewart's amendments seeking to set targets. The methodology for addressing housing land requirements will also consider how the needs for different types of housing should be assessed. Currently, as part of the housing needs and demand assessment, local authorities are required to consider the needs for specialist provision. That covers accessible and adapted housing, wheelchair housing and supported accommodation, including care homes and sheltered housing. Needs for other types of accommodation for different types of households, and gypsy traveller communities, has to be considered. All of that will feed into the national planning framework. Our programme for government reaffirms our commitment to delivering more wheelchair accessible housing to help people who need it to live independently in their communities. Those are important issues. I will very briefly take Mr Wightman. I will take him now. I do have a lot here, convener, as you can well understand. Thank you, minister. I fully understand the minister pointing out that many of the policy areas are already taken into account. The key thing as a matter of principle is that they are not being taken into account by statute. They are not required to be taken into account. I do not doubt that they are. I do not doubt that Scottish planning policy effectively covers them and I do not doubt the good intentions of the programme for government. However, there is a distinction between ministers and a particular administration having good policies towards something and there being a statutory requirement that they form part of the national planning framework. In terms of the national planning framework and what our intent is in terms of Scottish planning policy, we are putting a number of new things in place to allow for that. What I do not want is duplication. What I do not want is what we have been accused of by some during the course of this, where we centrally are making decisions that local authorities themselves need to make in their local development plans when it comes to decisions around about house numbers, et cetera. I can go back to the point about our seriousness about the issues, but I do not believe that it is appropriate in some of the circumstances to highlight one particular group of people in the national planning framework and the way that amendments 167 and 116 are would do, and I cannot support them. I recognise that further amendments in a similar vein will be considered when the committee discusses local development plans. In Monica Lennon's amendments in assessing the health impacts of development and Andy Wightman's engender would duplicate existing impact assessments that sit within a much more comprehensive framework. Health impact assessment is undertaken as a matter of course as part of the strategic environmental assessment of any part of the development plan, followed up where required by more detailed environmental impact assessment at project level. In terms of gender inequality issues, the 1997 act already requires ministers and planning authorities to perform their functions under the act in a manner that encourages equal opportunities. In addition, ministers and local authorities are subject to both the fairer Scotland duty and the public sector equality duty deriving from the Equality Act 2010. The public sector equality duty in particular requires the assessing of evidence, the commissioning of research or consultation as appropriate, the consideration of mitigating factors and the publication of the authority's conclusion. It is also regulated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which can take appropriate action if authorities are not compliant. My amendment 116 would require the Scottish ministers to provide the Parliament with a summary of the findings of any assessment of the likely impact of the proposed revised national planning framework, which would include the equality impact assessment and strategic impact assessment. The Scottish Government takes these issues seriously, but these amendments would simply introduce additional bureaucracy without any additional benefits. I would ask the committee to reject amendments 104, 116P, 83, 83A and 116F. Once again, I have no objection in principle to John Finnie's amendment 160, and you will find me much persuaded with other amendments that will come in due course on preserving disused railway lines that may be suitable for future public transport. That is already established as a policy in paragraph 277 of the Scottish planning policy. That will, of course, have greater weight in the future if the SPP is part of the NPS's development plan status. However, I would ask Mr Finnie not to move amendment 160, given that it is already covered in policy, and I feel that it is too specific in this context. Graham Simpson and Rhoda Grant are both seeking to ensure that the national planning framework takes into account the impact of wider legislation policies and strategies. I am conscious that many stakeholders support stronger alignment of NPF with wider policies and strategies, and I agree that that is very important. That has always been done with NPF 3, having done a particularly thorough job of bringing together that wider policy context for planning. The list in Graham Simpson's amendment could be viewed as incomplete, and it will become outdated in time. Although I understand that this is not intended to be comprehensive, planning authorities could consider that the policies listed here have a greater importance than others. I also have concerns about Rhoda Grant's amendment as it would lead to the addition of a potentially significant volume of quite detailed and technical information. I therefore ask Graham Simpson and Rhoda Grant not to move their amendments. Instead, I would be very happy to work with Mr Simpson and Ms Grant to bring forward a high-level requirement for the national planning framework to reflect other national policies and strategies at stage 3. Claudia Beamish's amendments 2, 1, 4 and 1, 1, 6 v would require the national planning framework to have regards to the infrastructure investment plan when designating national developments. The Scottish Government has already stated that it will seek to align the next version of the national planning framework with the infrastructure investment plan. I also want to ensure that future iterations of the infrastructure investment plan reflect the national planning framework. That is a clear priority. That does not mean that all national development must be fully funded in the infrastructure investment plan. The national planning framework can include unfunded long-term aspirational projects, as well as those that are more immediately deliverable and responsibility for delivery is shared by public and private sectors. However, I am comfortable in supporting amendments 2, 1, 4 and 1, 1, 6 v in the name of Claudia Beamish. Turning to Rhoda Grant's amendments 2, 1, 1 and 2, 1, 2 on resettling rural land with their equivalents 1, 1, 6, R and T, I have a lot of sympathy for those who criticise planning for sometimes taking an urban-centric view of what our countryside is for. It is critical that the planning system plays a more active role in meeting the needs of rural communities. I think that we can all agree that planning can and should do more to support our rural communities. I also agree that, in principle, resettling previously populated areas could help to achieve that. However, before we fully establish that as a requirement within the legislation, there needs to be fuller analysis and consultation on those proposals. Resettlement may not be appropriate in every area, and this Parliament should not go too far in instructing local authorities to address this matter. We need to look at potential pitfalls, such as the provision of public services, the impact on climate change emissions, and the risk of infertored rural development out of keeping with the area. If I may stray into another subgroup for just a moment, convener, I would suggest that Allister Island's amendments, which we will come to later, are a little bit more measured and therefore more appropriate for primary legislation. I ask Rhoda Grant not to move her amendment to allow us to do the work that needs to be done on all of this in a sensible way. I thank you for your patience, convener. I know that that is very long, but I have tried to address all elements of what is in front of us today. Thank you, minister. We will now have a short break before we move on to the debate on the next subgroup. We now move to the debate on the next subgroup. I remind members that we will dispose of amendments after having debated all five subgroups. We move to the debate on the second subgroup on consultation on the national planning framework, and I ask Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 215 and other amendments in the subgroup. Why? Thank you, convener. I will speak to amendment 215, which intends to improve transparency in the planning system. We all seem to agree that planning is about land being used in the public interests and that the public must know how planning decisions are being made. As it stands, it is not always immediately obvious how decisions are reached and who is consulted and why, and it is not always very easy to find that out. This amendment will clearly lay out who has been consulted when and provide opportunities to ensure that the right organisations are being consulted. Planning decisions, as we know, can have lots of unintended consequences. For example, building a football pitch does not just have implications for sport, but for young people, the wider community and our health, which is our recurring theme today. I move the amendment, convener. My apologies, my apologies. I ask Kenneth Gibson to speak to amendment 169 and other amendments in the subgroup. Convener, amendments 169 and 116A, specifying the need to consult with older people and disabled people and their families such persons as they represent the interests of older people and disabled people, including organisations working for and on behalf of older people and disabled people. In addition, it also specifies carers, planning authorities, registers, social landlords and developers. The purpose of those is to embed in legislation the requirement for consultation developing the national planning framework and require the Scottish Government to consult and respect the targets to be set by the Scottish ministers with a range of people on the housing needs of older and disabled people. Rhoda Grant speaks to amendment 216. I will speak to amendment 216 and 116W. I set the scene for those amendments earlier, so I will not repeat any of those statements. Those amendments relate to maps of no longer inhabited human settlements and associated material contained and debated earlier in amendment 212 and 116T and makes the provision for public consultation on the criteria for developing those maps and associated material. Again, I am hedging my bets with the two amendments depending on what happens to amendment 116. I am going to let Monica Lennon back in to speak to another amendment that should have been spoken to. Thank you, convener. I just stick into order. I wanted to speak to 186. This is about, in preparing the national planning framework, that ministers must consult the chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS Scotland. This amendment follows the theme of embedding the consideration of health into the planning system to ensure a positive impact on health outcomes across Scotland. In a similar vein to ensuring that health is considered in the preparation of the national planning framework, requiring the consultation of the chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS Scotland is intended to ensure that ministers are taking into account the main challenges and opportunities relating to the nation's health when they prepare the national planning framework. The amendment also requires any representation to be published in order to inform parliamentary scrutiny of the national planning framework, because for proper scrutiny to occur, Parliament must be made aware of the recommendations that are being made by the chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS Scotland. I also move that amendment, convener. There are no other amendments in that subgroup that you wish to speak to. We now move on to the debate on the third subgroup. Oh, minister, my apologies. I thought you were leaving me out there, convener. Well, there was so little for you to talk about, so I thought. A little less this time than the last time, I think. Before I go through each of the amendments in turn, I would like to point out that the consultation on the national planning framework is, as a matter of course, very broad-ranging and inclusive. I would also remind the committee that there is already a requirement for a participation statement to be prepared, setting out who is expected to be consulted and when. Each of those amendments is seeking a relatively detailed approach to prescribing consultation requirements. I am not convinced that those additional requirements are appropriate. I understand the thinking behind Ms Lennon's amendment 186 and 116-J. I too recognise and respect the importance of planning to health and health to planning. This amendment would introduce a requirement for ministers to consult with the chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS Scotland in preparing the national planning framework. I think that we need to avoid being too prescriptive in primary legislation, naming key individuals and organisations, whereas other consultees are usually set out in secondary legislation. I would question whether it is appropriate to single out two individual officers when the consultation on the NPF is required to be very broad and inclusive. Many other sectors and stakeholders could no doubt argue that they should also be included on this list, and setting out a comprehensive list in primary legislation would be impossible. I would ask the committee to reject this amendment. Would you accept that it is possible to name people that you have to consult with while not preventing you from consulting with others? Do you accept that we can name people that you need to consult with? That does not prevent a wider consultation. It has been the norm in this Parliament to deal with these matters in secondary legislation. Naming individuals or organisations and not naming others can often cause quite a lot of grief in terms of setting that out in primary legislation. I think that it is much better to do that in secondary legislation, because there will no doubt be others who will come forward and say that they should be named in the primary legislation too, if certain individuals or organisations are named. In terms of Kenneth Gibson in amendments 169 and 116C, which is proposing an extensive list of specific interests to consult to inform his proposed targets on housing for older and disabled people, his amendment focuses on the requirement for the participation statement for the national planning framework. Again, I agree that this is an important issue, but I have concerns that this amendment is too narrowly defined when many different interests could equally argue that they should be listed here. How well do you, convener? I think that the issue is that the problem has been, I think, a lot of members accept what you are saying in principle, but our experience so far is that this has not really happened, and that is why this built-in braces approach has been brought in by a number of members across the committee. Mr Gibson has been a member of this Parliament for a very long time. He will know the difficulties that there are at points in naming some groups or some things in primary legislation and not others. It has been the norm to deal with this through secondary legislation. I have said that I agree that we have to look at what is required in terms of housing for older and disabled people. Nobody would dispute that, and he can be assured that I will be doing all that I can to ensure that their views are heard. I do not think that that necessarily needs to be listed in primary legislation. With regard to amendments 2.1.6 and 1.1.6.w from Rhoda Grant, I agree that, if there is to be a map of no longer inhabited settlements included in the national planning framework, consultation should be undertaken. However, I would make the same point that this is a very specific requirement and should not be necessary. I cannot support Monica Lennon's amendments 2.1.5 and 1.1.6.w and what they propose even in principle. The amendments would require the national planning framework to include a complete list of persons to be consulted in the carrying out of any and all planning functions under the 1997 act. The circumstances for and purpose of consulting them would also have to be set out. This is not a proportionate approach and would be difficult if not impossible to achieve in practice. The Scottish ministers and planning authorities are required to consult the public at large. How far would Ms Lennon expect us to go in identifying individuals and organisations within that and predicting the potential scope of future amendments and the exact people who would be interested in each and how those people and organisations might change over a 10-year period? To conclude, I would ask the committee to bear in mind that we are seeking to streamline the system rather than burdening it with additional requirements that are unnecessary and, in the case of amendments 2.1.5 and 1.1.6.w, it is impossible to implement. I would ask members not to press the amendments in this subgroup. I am not sure that the procedure could be right. I just wanted to ask a question. Should I try to have caught him before he finished? Would you never have caught him before he finished? No, it didn't get done. No, so if the question could be asked at the next stage then you'll get to ask it then. Okay, I shall do that. We now move to the debate on the third subgroup. Andy Wightman to speak to amendment 187 and other amendments in the subgroup. Thank you, convener. My amendment 187 is a guidance power in relation to my amendment 83, which is already debated. On, I don't have anything further to add to that, it's self-explanatory. I'll leave my remarks at that. Thank you very much. Would everybody please follow on the footsteps of Mr Wightman there? We now move on to Claire Baker to speak to amendment 71 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm pleased to speak to amendment 71 and 116k. Amendment 71 seeks to add cultural to the list of characteristics that need to be considered in the advice given to Scottish ministers for the national planning framework. This amendment recognises the importance of cultural assets to communities and including it in the bill would reflect the recent inclusion of culture as an outcome in the national performance framework. It would indicate the significance of culture and recognise its benefits to society. Recognising that local government is under significant financial pressures, culture is an area that lacks statutory protection and can be an area that is vulnerable and at risk of being overlooked or undervalued. This amendment seeks to recognise the importance of local cultural assets and access in decision making. Amendment 116k has the same aim as amendment 71 and protects the amendment if the committee agrees to the minister's amendment, which would replace section 1. Thank you very much. Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the subgroup. As convener, amendment 72 is particularly controversial. It includes a reference to including built heritage within the NPF, so planning authority must provide information about the built heritage of an area when preparing the NPF. Amendment 32, our intention there was to make it an obligation within a new section 3AA2 to the 1997 act that information on housing needs and education capacity are included as matters to be taken into consideration in the formulation of a national planning framework from what I was hearing from the minister earlier. He doesn't seem to go along with that, but I will be pressing that. Amendment 33 relates to the capacity of education services, so very, very, very similar to the previous one. Both these amendments are back by Homes for Scotland. I have to say that they don't like everything I've put forward. I've mentioned them, but they're not in favour of everything, but they are in favour of this. Amendment 32 would assist the target setting role of the NPF by ensuring evidence on housing need is provided to ministers by planning authorities for the purpose of NPF preparation. On a point of detail, if need is intended here, all 10 years, then this should be made clear. Others, if you just bear with me, convener. The others, convener, I think we've touched on their amendments to 116, so I'll not speak on them. Thank you very much. We now move on to Monica Lennon to speak to amendments 105 and any other amendments in the circuit. Thank you, convener. I'll speak to 105 and 106. 105, this amendment is intended to ensure that the national planning framework considers the impact of development on the capacity of existing health services in the area. It is intended to ensure that the development of the national planning framework is responsive to the health needs of the population and that there is a direct link between development of the framework and the consideration of the capacity of health services. We all know that the impact of development on health services is profound whether it is increased demand affecting capacity due to an influx of properties within a particular area or whether it is the unintended consequences of the development of other infrastructure and transport links. This amendment is intended to make sure not only that there is a much clearer link between the NPF and the consequence of development on health outcomes but that the NPF is more cognisant of the needs of our health services and the unintended consequences of development. 106 is similar to 105. It tends to make sure that the NPF must make specific consideration of the health needs of the population when it is being drawn up so that there is a much clearer link between the proposed development in the national planning framework and any unintended health consequences depending on the health needs of the population, the impact of certain developments on air quality, for example, and the potential health effects of the population should be explicitly considered when the NPF is being drafted. This very much connects back to my earlier amendments, which seek to consult the chief medical officer and the chief executive of the NHS. I am sure that it is not what the minister is intending, but when we talk about consultation and having litter consultancies being burdensome, I think that we have to remember that a people-centred and rights-based approach to planning is better for everyone. If we are saying that it is problematic to say in legislation that the chief medical officer has to be consulted, I think that we have to look at the way that we are approaching this. I do not believe that any of those amendments are burdensome. It is really important that people have a rights-based approach to planning. People know that they can be consulted and that it does not exclude others from being involved, but we have heard time and again during our evidence sessions about people who feel that they have not been taken into account of. That is why, in particular, as well as community councils, I have introduced that access panels should be consulted, because older people feel that their needs are not being taken into account. Those things should not be left to discretion or to chance, so that is why the bill and braces approach is very much required. I move 105 and 106, convener. Thank you very much, Monica. Can you give us some to speak to amendment 170? Thank you, convener. Amendment 170 and 116D seek to ensure that, when the principal purpose for which land and area is used, the needs of disabled people and older people are taken into account. Those amendments introduce a duty to provide information about the housing needs of older people and of disabled people within the planning authority area. This enables Scottish ministers, when preparing or revising the national planning framework, to require planning authorities to assist the process by providing information about the housing needs of older people within the planning authority area and disabled people. That will give Scottish ministers the powers when preparing or revising the national planning framework to direct one or more planning authorities to provide information about certain matters in relation to an area that is specified in the direction, including, for example, the principal, physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area. Rhoda Grant speaks to amendment 217 and other amendments in the subgroup. Can I speak to 217 and 116AE, which again is taking the belt and braces approach? Again, I will not rehearse the arguments that I made earlier, but they stand for this amendment too. This amendment refers to the decidability of allocating land for the purposes of resettlement. It would become one of the matters to be referred to in information to assist the preparation of the national planning framework. It would invite consideration in this context of the desirability of allocating land for the purpose of achieving resettlement, a practical step that may be helpful on the way to achieving resettlement. It provides ministers with the powers to do this, which I hope they would find helpful. I thank Claudia Beamish for speaking to amendment 218 and other amendments. Thank you, convener. My amendment 218 seeks to enhance recognition of the importance of renewable energy in our future planning decisions. It enables Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority or authorities to provide information on the particular land available for development and use of facilities for renewable sources of energy to contribute to our supplies. This information will assist, in my view, ministers in preparing and reviewing the NPF. 208 adds specific reference to renewables provisions at the end of the list of other infrastructure matters, communications, transport, drainage systems and systems for the supply of water and energy. While I appreciate that energy is already highlighted, my amendment emphasises that renewables need a joined-up Government approach and that it will be helped to continue to emphasise that it is vitally important that we succeed in the shift to a zero-carbon economy. Adding renewable energy to the list of specifications before preparing the NPF bolsters that imperative and, I believe, also gives confidence to the sector and points in the appropriate direction. As with others, amendment 116AE has the same effect and was submitted as a contingency. Thank you. Thank you, convener. If I may speak to 116L and 116M, I will speak to two other amendments later on in proceeding. I want to say that the two amendments here are driven by working with Community of Land Scotland and also driven by the experience of being an island MSP, recognising the need for people in rural Scotland and recognising, too, that planners need to understand that some communities will either develop or die. I hope that that is a practical and proportionate way of recognising those facts. 116L relates to the Scottish Government amendment 116 on the national planning framework. Amendment 116L would require planning authorities to provide information on the extent to which there are rural areas where there has been a substantial decline in population and where they are directed by ministers to do so to inform the preparation of the national planning framework. That would mean that rural depopulation is effectively established as a principle for the national planning framework to address. In saying that, I understand the point that the minister has made about non-duplication of effort here, but I would hope for an assurance from the minister at this stage that he will use the new powers to establish in the NPF the principle that planning decisions should specifically have regard to the need to repopulate rural Scotland. On 116M, convener, this amendment gives power to ministers to define what constitutes a rural area and substantial decline when they come to form those regulations. Before I go to the minister, I am going to go back to Monica Lennon, there is another amendment that she would like to speak to. I would like to speak to amendment 219, convener, regarding the addition of advice on the compatibility with statutory climate targets before publishing the draft in the NPF. As with health, we recognise that the planning system has a huge part to play in protecting the environment and where possible, limiting the negative impact that we have on the planet. I believe that we have to give both minister and planners a tool to make that possible, and that amendment offers such a tool. The Parliament recognises that the statutory climate targets are an important indicator of our work to protect against climate change. That amendment allows ministers to understand the impact that the NPF will have on those targets and our work to achieve them. I move amendment 219. Thank you very much for that. Before I let the minister in, can I just say that once a minister stops speaking on this, that is the end of the section and we are moving on to the other one, so do not be asking questions after, if you want to intervene, then if you will take an intervention and that is fine. All of the amendments in this group seek to add specific issues to the information that can be sought by ministers to inform the national planning framework. In considering those amendments, I am keen to ensure that the bill does not duplicate existing requirements and avoids becoming overly prescriptive. I am also conscious that, in some cases, similar amendments have been proposed for local development plans. I would ask the committee to bear in mind that some issues may be more appropriate for more detailed local level planning, and there will be an opportunity to consider that further in a later group. Andy Wightman's amendment 187 and 116g would require Scottish ministers to issue guidance to local authorities on his proposed section 3A3A on considering impacts on relation to gender. I have already highlighted the existing public sector equality duty, which applies to ministers and local authorities and the equality and human rights commission issues technical guidance on that duty. I do not think that we should seek to cut across or duplicate their responsibilities. I agree with Clare Baker's amendment 71 and 116k. The Government wants to see culture at the heart of policymaking, and this amendment can reinforce the importance of cultural facilities and opportunities through good placemaking and the very positive contribution that they make to life in Scotland. It is proportionate, it is in the right place and I am very happy to support it. I have no objection to amendment 72 and 116z—it was very American Z—in the name of Graham Simpson. Our belt heritage is addressed in the national planning framework as a matter of course, and could be argued to be covered by the broader heading of environment. However, I agree that this is an important part of the quality, distinctiveness and identity of our many places, and that it would be useful to highlight that it is a matter for authorities to consider as part of their plans. Amendment 32, also from Graham Simpson, adds housing needs of the population in an area to the list of information that authorities can be asked to provide to inform the NPF. Amendments 33 and 116ad, also from Graham Simpson, add the capacity of education services to that list. In my view, the wording of amendment 116 in my name is preferable to both of those proposals. With regard to housing, planning terminology usually only equates need with affordable housing. The requirement could also arise from outwith an area rather than being specific to the population within an area, as suggested by Mr Simpson's amendment. My amendment includes housing in the list of information that is required for the NPF, but it goes beyond needs to also encompass demand by referring to the availability of land in the area for housing and the availability of and requirements for housing in the area. Amendment 116 also reflects education as a type of infrastructure and focuses on facilities to align this with development and land use rather than the broader approach in amendment 33. Fost a support Graham Simpson's amendments on housing and education in principle, I would ask that he not move them as these matters are now addressed in amendment 116. I agree with the aims of Monica Lennon's amendments 105, 116ab, 106 and 116ac. It is important that we understand and address the impacts of development on people's health and wellbeing, and development planning should take into account the capacity of health services. I am content to support amendment 105 and 116ab, although I would suggest that it would sit more naturally in the list of infrastructure types that are out under section 3ag2d of amendment 116. Perhaps I might discuss that with Ms Lennon before stage 3. However, I find it difficult to support the breadth of amendment 106. Planning authorities cannot be expected to fully explore all of the health needs of the population of their area. I recognise that planning in place can make a big difference to people's health and wellbeing by supporting them to be more active, to interact with others and by preventing developments that could have a significant effect or mitigating their impacts to an acceptable level. Having suitable housing and employment is important to health as well. However, some aspects of health have made nothing at all to do with development planning or land use. What springs to mind immediately is smoking, alcohol-related diseases and contraception. We need to be careful that we are not expecting the planning system to address all of society's issues. Rather, I would prefer authorities to have a clearer understanding of health infrastructure and its relationship with future development, as would be the case if the committee supports amendment 105. Although I do not think that housing needs for specific groups should be highlighted at the top level of the national planning framework, I am happy to accept Kenneth Gibson's amendments 170 and 116D to ensure that the housing needs of older and disabled people are a matter on which local authorities may be asked to provide information. I mentioned before that I feel that Alistair Allen's amendments on addressing rural depopulation are more appropriate than that of Rhoda Grant's. I understand that both have been inspired by calls from Community Land Scotland for planning to address the issue. I have a lot of sympathy for those who criticise our planning system as it applies to rural areas. I have said that previously and I reiterate that. I took part in a rural planning summit last Friday to hear the views of folks who feel that we could be doing more in that front. I am concerned that, too often, communities are unable to sustain vital local services or to meet their own housing needs, partly if not wholly, as a result of an overly restrictive planning policy. In some cases, environmental considerations are put ahead of the needs of local people. Both are important and need to be considered in national, strategic and local development planning. Local communities recognise the value of their environment. It makes a major contribution to their quality of life and to the tourism that is often important to local economies and rural areas. That quality of life will suffer if we cannot deliver the homes and facilities that people need or if we are unable to sustain whole communities in the long term as a result of overly restrictive rural planning policies. I am particularly struck by the positive approach to development that communities in remote parts of Scotland take and by the work of Community Land Scotland in supporting and empowering communities to take ownership of the future of their own places. Those initiatives are forerunners to a more positive planning system, which will also give people the right to plan their own places. I agree that the national planning framework has an important role to play in tackling the issue of rural depopulation. I want to open a fuller debate on how we can sustain and grow rural communities, including by repopulating areas where people used to live when we began the review of the national planning framework after the bill. Referring to that in the bill will ensure that that happens. As I said before, I am sympathetic to all those amendments, but I am concerned that Rhoda Grant's go too far in setting out detailed policy in the bill. I would ask her not to move those amendments and recommend the committee support Allister Islands amendments instead. Amendments 218 and 116AE from Claudia Beamish would provide that to where ministers direct planning authorities provide information on energy to inform the national planning framework that this can include particular land available for renewable energy. Planning has an important role to play in providing a steer on where this type of development should and should not take place. National planning framework 3 explored Scotland as a low-carbon place. Even since 2014, technologies have continued to emerge and will be considered in national planning framework 4. It is arguable that section 3AG already covers all types of energy, but given the importance of renewable energy in relation to climate change and the additional spatial focus that amendment 5 would bring, I am happy to support it. Finally, I turn to Monica Lennon's amendments 219 and 116N. The national planning framework has an important role to play in helping us to meet our climate change targets. Adapting to the impact of climate change is also a key priority for a long-term spatial strategy. MPF 3 introduced many proposals that will help us to reduce emissions such as low-carbon energy generation and sustainable transport. Although the national planning framework has to take into account many different, often competing policy objectives, it should, as a whole, have a positive impact on climate change. Any consultation on a national planning framework would naturally include a debate about its impact on climate change. That would also be assessed as part of a strategic environmental assessment of the MPF as a result of existing statutory requirements. Once again, this amendment is simply duplicating existing statutory requirements. The climate change Scotland Act 2009 states that a public body must, in exercising its functions, act in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the target set out in the act. The climate change committee is required to give advice on that duty. I do not consider that it is helpful or necessary to essentially restate that requirement, but in a slightly different way relating specifically to the national planning framework. I also have concerns about the additional resources involved and formally seeking advice from the relevant body on that specific matter in addition to the existing duties. Is Monica Lennon even consulted the climate change committee on whether it considers that additional duty to be helpful? I do not believe that these amendments will really add value to the planning system, and I would ask Monica Lennon not to move them today. Thank you, minister. We will now move to the debate on the fourth subgroup, and I ask Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 38 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. There was a lot of debate and discussion in the committee around the issue of whether the national planning framework could be amended or should be amended by MSPs. The view of the committee was that we should have that ability to do that. Currently, as things stand, there is not a parliamentary procedure that would allow that, so the Belt and Braces approach is to introduce a national planning framework bill, which is what amendment 38 would do. I fully accept that this is unusual, difficult, and for that reason I will not be moving it, but I wanted to get it on the table. That was the reason behind it. As an alternative, I have introduced amendment 39. It is not quite as far as I would like to go, but it does introduce a greater level of scrutiny and ability for MSPs to have a say over the national planning framework. The Government's reluctance to accept this point is the reason why it has had a lot of amendments that deal with policy areas on this bill. MSPs have pushed back and seen an opportunity here to get policy things into a bill, whereas if the Government had taken a different approach, that might not have happened. Amendment 6 ensures that the time limit for scrutiny of the MPF should be at least 120 days, but I believe that, if we pass amendment 39, that would be negated. However, Andy Wightman has a similar amendment, which I would be minded to support. Amendment 40 calls for a simple annual report mechanism for the MPF. It does not say in any detail what that should cover. That can probably be dealt with by regulations, but it must be submitted at the end of the calendar year. I would accept that perhaps an annual report by the Government might think that too onerous. I do not think that it is for Government. I think that the Government is capable of doing that. Amendment 116x ensures that the Scottish ministers may not bring into effect the national planning framework until a draft of it has been approved by resolution of the Parliament. The amendment supports the superaffirmative procedure for consideration of the MPF. That goes back to what I was saying earlier about the ability of MSPs to influence the MPF. Finally, amendment 116x calls for a similar annual report mechanism of the MPF. I have made my points. It is all about scrutiny, the ability of MSPs to have a say and to influence. I do not think that the Government is going far enough, so they may wish to reflect on that for stage 3. Andy Wightman speaks to amendments 39A and other amendments. Thanks very much, convener. This is a very important group of amendments, as has already been alluded to by Graham Simpson. The bill proposes that the national planning framework become part of the development plan for an area alongside the local development plan. That is new. That has not been the case to date, and that is an important reform that I agree with and I, as I recollect, the committee agrees with as well. Unlike the local development plan, the national planning framework has got no democratic underpinning. It is a plan of ministers, and although Parliament has consulted on it, Parliament has no role in improving that plan. Given that we have a special planning system that is based on the development of proposals, ideas and debate, which, as things stand at the moment, ultimately gets to a point where a democratically elected body adopts the plan or agrees the plan, that similar procedures have to be put in place with regard to the national planning framework if, as I say, the bill proposes that it becomes part of the development plan. If those arrangements are not put in place, it is important to highlight the fact that there has been nothing to stop a minority Government of a party, for example, who wishes to implement fracking, but nothing to stop such a minority Government of a party that wishes to do that, to make that part of the national planning framework, to incorporate such a proposal in it, having that proposed by Parliament, and yet it becomes part of the development plan, probably against the wishes of most local authorities and most of the population. As I say, in a democratic planning system, this is wrong, and I am therefore pleased that the Government has accepted the key recommendation in stage 1 to rectify this and make the plan subject to a resolution of Parliament. Amendment 39, in Graham Simpson's name, provides in my view an elegant legislative solution by way of what is now an established, although not a formal, mechanism, a superfirmative procedure. I prefer the simplicity and elegance of this and its increasing familiarity in Parliament to the rather more long-winded drafting of 116. I disagree with the proposition in amendment 38, and Graham Simpson has already indicated that he will not move that, so I will say nothing more on that. My amendments 39A and B are to extend the period of parliamentary scrutiny of a draft national planning framework to no more than 120 days. The stage 1 committee recommended that there shall be no statutory limits for Parliament. I think that ministers do require and deserve some certainty in their own timetabling. While 60 days at the moment is probably too short, it could be done in 60 days if it was a very modest national planning framework. If that were possible, anything up to 120 would be allowed by my amendments, but that does not mean that Parliament would necessarily use up to 120. Finally, on amendment 40, which requires annual reports on the national planning framework, my views are unnecessary and I think that it is disproportionate. I do not think that it is a good use of the Scottish ministers' resources and I will not be supporting it. First of all, I am delighted to hear that Mr Simpson will not be moving amendment 38 in terms of introducing the MPF as a bill for an active Parliament. We are trying to work out how that could be done and that would be extremely difficult indeed. I am pleased that Mr Simpson has said that he is not going to move amendment 38. I know that we all have taken the opportunity at points to use those kind of probing amendments and I am glad that he has seen that this probing amendment is maybe one too far. Amendment 39 in 116x also by Mr Simpson separately proposes that the Scottish Parliament approves the draft MPF. Amendment 116, in my name, also addresses approval of the MPF by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. That is a significant change that I am proposing in direct response to the committee stage 1 report. I have other concerns with Mr Simpson's proposed procedures seeking representations alongside the period for parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that it is unnecessary as a draft will have already been subjected to full public consultation and extensive engagement prior to being laid in the Parliament. That comes under step 2 in amendment 116. I am not sure why the requirements relating to non-disclosure representations would be necessary in the context of the general data protection regulations or how they would interact with that wider legislation and the information commissioners responsibilities. I agree with Mr Simpson's approach in subsection 6 requiring additional consultation to be undertaken where changes are made at this point, but that is already required in the case of significant amendments under the terms of the environmental assessment Scotland Act 2005. On timescales for parliamentary scrutiny of the national planning framework, amendment 6 suggests that the period for parliamentary scrutiny should be set at a minimum of 120 days. That is unnecessarily lengthy and open-ended. Andy Wightman proposes a maximum period of 120 days in amendments 39A, 39B and 116H. That is a bit clearer as it sets a limit to the process. However, I either have the potential to generate significant delay and uncertainty that would have an adverse impact on the planning system as a whole. 120 days is too long and I do not support that. It is important to recognise that this is one part of a lengthy process, including wide public engagement, with past experience showing that this can take around 18 months in total. If the period of 120 sitting days was required, that would account for around half of that process, depending on when in the year the draft MPF is laid. A period of 120 days in Parliament equates to eight or nine months. I have some sympathy with what Mr Signe said. Does he agree that the current period should be lengthened? The time that the Parliament takes to scrutinise the MPF should be in proportion. Amendment 116 sets the timescales for consideration to 90 days. I think that that is proportionate. That is an extension, and I think that that is proportionate. That would give Parliament more time to consider the MPF than it has currently. The 60-day period for an amendment to the MPF is also ample, given that amendments will only relate to specific parts of the framework. In practice, ministers can, of course, extend the timescale for scrutiny if Parliament needs additional time, so I do not support amendments 39 and 116x, and I would urge the committee to support the procedure set out in amendment 116. In amendment 40, Graham Simpson proposes an annual progress report on national planning framework to be submitted to the Scottish Parliament. I consider that to be too frequent as timescales for large-scale developments and infrastructure projects are generally much longer, and I do not want to see unnecessary bureaucracy added to the process. The Government already maintains an online action programme for MPF 3, which is updated at least once a year, and I would be happy to provide the committee with links if it is of interest to members. Monace Ring reports also tend to be published ahead of a revision of the national planning framework, but the timing of that is flexible and it is a discretionary approach to ensure that reporting is meaningful rather than a tick-box exercise. I fully believe that our commitment to stronger digital support for the next national planning framework will greatly increase the accessibility of the national planning framework for everyone. Although I have no objection to reporting on progress and principle, I would ask Graham Simpson not to move the amendment. Beyond all that, convener, is this committee as well aware? I will take Mr Simpson, convener. Is the minister objecting to the principle or just the frequency of it? As I have just said, I am not against reporting on progress and principle at all. I think that the frequency of a year is too often, but beyond that, convener, I am not entirely sure what with the monitoring reports and all of the rest of it that we already have online if an annual report is actually required. I would say that this committee has never been backward in coming forward at calling me to this committee to account for various things. It may well be that future committees would get more out of all of that if they were to call ministers to talk more often about the national planning framework and where it is at. We now move to the debate on the final subgroup. I ask Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to amendment 116h and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have already spoken my reasoning behind 116h. This is my insurance policy for if 1854s. I think that, given where we are, should 1854, I may decide to withdraw 116h. Minister, would you like to speak to amendment 128 and other amendments in the group and be aware that you will not get a chance to sum up it later? Amendment 116, in my name, introduces the new section 3AB, convener, which addresses the amendment of the national planning framework. Subsection 2 of that section supplies the new section 3AC from specified amendments to the national planning framework. This is expected to relate to minor amendments and it acts on a commitment that I made at the stage 1 to clarify the different procedures for significant and minor amendments. Subsections 3 and 4 allow the Scottish ministers to make regulations about the procedures for these minor amendments and how they are to be laid before the Scottish Parliament. The definition of a minor amendment would be prescribed in regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament can actively agree to what can be exempted from the full MPF scrutiny and adoption procedure. Amendments 128 and 154 are consequential of other amendments. Amendment 128 removes the section 3CA provisions introduced by the bill in relation to the amendment of the MPF, because those provisions are updated and replaced by amendment 116. Amendment 154 removes a reference to amending the MPF, which the bill would place in section 3D of the 1997 act, which is repealed by amendment 115 on the purpose of planning. Turning to amendment 41, in the name of Graham Simpson, my amendment 116 already sets out detailed proposals for handling the consideration of substantial and minimal amendments to the national planning framework. My amendment also provides clarity on consultation and reporting requirements for amendments reflecting the commitment that I made at stage 1. As a result, I do not support amendment 116H in the name of Alex Cole Hamilton. We have already proposed a radical change to the MPF by giving the Scottish Parliament the power to approve the proposed framework before it can be adopted. That is a significant shift in the balance of power and responsibility for the national planning framework, which I hope that the committee welcomes. Amendment 116H does not require the Parliament to state why it considers that the MPF should be amended or in what way, but I assume that Mr Cole Hamilton intends that the resolution should set those things out. However, the MPF is a statement of the Scottish ministers' policies and priorities for the development and use of land. The role of Parliament should be to scrutinise the Government policies, including making suggestions for changes where appropriate, but it should not have the ability to instruct ministers to amend the MPF in particular ways. The purpose of my amendment is to recognise that things come up, and sometimes the planning cycle does not give ground or flexibility where a shock to the system requiring a massive change to housing policy is forthcoming. Therefore, we need a mechanism for Parliament to trigger that. I think that, as I have already stated, we have changed already the way that we are doing these things. I think that Parliament has got a lot of ways of dealing with shocks to the system, and we will have to become adaptable in many areas with the forthcoming chaos that may come from Brexit. My concerns about Mr Cole Hamilton's amendments are also practical. Bringing forward an amendment to the MPF would be a significant undertaking, given the rigorous process that we are now proposing, and it would be difficult to ensure that the time and resources that are required to follow Parliament's instruction to amend the MPF would be available at any given time. I asked the committee to agree amendments 128 and 154, in addition to amendment 116, which sets a clear and proportionate approach for amending national planning framework. I ask that you reject amendments 41 and 116, please, convener. Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 41 and other amendments in the group. Just amendment 41, convener. The ministers touched on it already. It merely ensures that ministers are required to say when an amendment to the MPF would be significant enough to require the plan to be revised. That, again, is all about parliamentary scrutiny, in fact, enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, and I will be moving it. We have now completed the debate on the whole group. I call on Alex Cole Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 185. I would like specifically to address the point that Andy Wightman said. He expressed his view that my amendment was not necessary and that this was just tidying up the language of the 97 act to reflect the new reality. In my experience, both before and after being elected of parliamentary drafters and lawyers is that they loathe unnecessary legislations. Whilst Andy Wightman regard this as just tidying up, legislatures just do not do that. This is clearly to change intent as far as I am concerned and that of my party. That is that by so empowering ministers or by stating the supremacy of ministerial policy in this regard and tying it to the MPF rather than it being a vague notional direction for planning authorities, this makes ministerial policy an influence here, the alpha and the omega of the planning system. As such, I restate my view in that of my council groups that this would be a gross centralisation of power and a relegation of local authority to the role of consultancy in the planning process. On that basis, I press the amendment. Thank you very much. Therefore, the question is that amendment 185 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Can I ask those who are agreed to raise their hands, please? Thank you. Those opposed and therefore no abstentions. Thank you very much. Given that, after this, there is a huge block of voting that would take up a considerable amount of time, my suggestion is that we stop the voting here. We go on with some of the other pieces of business that we have to do today, which would give people a chance to get a bite to eat before we start the early session this afternoon because we will not get through all the voting before we have to break off today. Then what we do is we just reconvene the voting next week. I quite like to do the voting while it is fresh in our minds. I do not know how long you think that is going to take. We might not be able to get it all finished in time. I am happy to carry on if that is what the wishes of the committees will get on and we will do as much of it as we can, but none of you have come complaining that it means that I have to now eat a starving. That is the only thing that I would say. In that case then, I call amendment 30 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not to move? The question therefore is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those who are in agreement, raise your hands please. I call amendment 104 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. The question therefore is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those who are agreed, thank you. Those opposed, okay? In no abstentions. Yes, agreed to, 43. I call amendment 167 in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 185. Kenneth Gibson, to move or not to move? The question therefore is that amendment 167 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Don't be so keen, please. Will those who are in favour, raise your hands? And those who are opposed? Yes, and no abstentions. Therefore, it's been agreed, 52. I call amendment 31 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not to move? The question therefore is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, yes. Those who are in favour, those who are opposed, 43. Agreed, 43. I call amendment 211 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda Grant, to move or not to move? Move. Okay. The question therefore is that amendment 211 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Okay. Those who are in favour, those who are opposed, okay? That's agreed, 43. I call amendment 83 in the name of Andy Whiteman, already debated with amendment 185. Andy Whiteman, to move or not to move? Move. Okay. I call amendment 83A in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Thank you. Therefore, the question is that amendment 83A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay. Those who are in agreement, raise your hands. Those who are opposed, it's agreed, 52. Stop for a second. Okay. Andy Whiteman, to press or withdraw amendment 83. Thank you. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Okay. Therefore, those who are in favour, please raise and those who are opposed, and it's falls five to two, no abstentions. I call amendment 160 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 185. John Finnie is not here, you move me's behalf. Andy. I'd like to move. Absolutely. The question is that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Okay. Those who are in agreement and those who are opposed, 43. Okay. Therefore, it passes. It's agreed, 43. I call amendment 168 in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 185. Kenneth Gibson, to move. I'll not move. Thank you. The question therefore is that amendment 168 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those who are agreed, those who are opposed, except for agreed to, 52. Yeah. Okay. I call amendment 215 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Monica Lennon, to move or not move. Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 215 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those who are in favour, please raise your hands. Those who are opposed, amendment falls 43. I call amendment 212 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. The member wishes to withdraw their amendment. It's okay, she's not moved. That's good, I'm delighted to hear it. I call amendment 213 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 214 in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 185. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 214 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Motion left has been passed, 7-0. I call amendment 186 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Monica Lennon, to move or not move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 186 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those who are in favour, please raise your hands. Those who are opposed, it's 5-2. I call amendment 169 in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 185. Kenneth Gibson, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 169 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those who are in favour, please raise your hands. Those who are opposed, it's agreed 5-2. I call amendment 216 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 187 in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 185. Andy Wightman, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour and those opposed, 187 is agreed to 4-3. I call amendment 71 in the name of Claire Baker, already debated with amendment 185. Claire Baker, to move or not move. It moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Therefore, the amendment is passed. I call amendment 72 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 32 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 32, please raise your hands. Those opposed, the amendment passes 4-3. I call amendment 33 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 33, please raise your hands. I call amendment 33 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. You are arming your voice, we are doing two different things here. I call amendment 33 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Those opposed. That's 4-3 in favour. The amendment has been agreed to. I call amendment 105 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Monica Lennon, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is if or agreed to. I call amendment 106 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Monica Lennon, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those who are in favour of the amendment, please raise your hands and those who oppose. The amendment 106 is agreed to 4-3. I call amendment 170 in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 185. The question is that amendment 170 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is if or agreed to. I call amendment 217 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 217 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those who are in favour of the amendment and those who are opposed. That's four. You need to pay more attention, Mr Gibson. You need to pay more attention. I call amendment 217 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 218 in the name of Claudia Beamish. That's your fault. I call amendment 218 in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 185. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move. Just here to move, yes. The question is that amendment 218 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is if or been agreed to. I call amendment 219 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. The question is that amendment 219 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those who are in favour of 219, please raise your hand. That's four and those opposed. I'm going to suspend the meeting for a second. I call amendment 38 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. I would point out that amendments 38 and 39 are direct alternatives. That means that the committee can decide on both. If both are agreed to, amendment 39 will replace amendment 38. If either or both of these amendments are agreed to, I cannot call amendment 6. Please note that direct alternative and preemption information, as unfortunately it did not appear on the groupings. Therefore, Graham Simpson, to move or not to move. I call amendment 39 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. I call amendment 39A in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 185. The question is that amendment 39A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those who are in favour of 39 and those who are opposed, 39A has passed by 4 votes to 3. I call amendment 39B in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 185. The question is that amendment 39B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those who are in favour, those who are opposed, that is 4-3 in favour, 39B. I now ask Graham Simpson to press or withdraw amendment 39. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Yes. Those who are in favour and those who are opposed, the amendment 39 has been agreed to 4-3. I now call amendment 40 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 40, those opposed, the amendment falls 4-3. I call amendment 116 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 185. Minister, would you like to move formally? Thank you very much. Your amendments are slightly larger than anybody else's. I call amendment 116E in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated. I move. I call amendment 116A in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated. The question is that amendment 116A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, those opposed, passes the amendment 116A, passes 5-2. I call amendment 116O in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 116O be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, please show. Those opposed. I thought you were keeping that up there, Alec. Passes 4-3. I call amendment 116E in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton. 116P in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. I call amendment 116P, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, those opposed. The amendment 116P passes 4-3. I call amendment 116B in the name of Kenny Gibson, already debated with amendment 185. I move. The question is that amendment 116B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, 5-4. I call amendment 116F in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 185. The question is that amendment 116F be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, those opposed. That's 2 in favour, 5 opposed. The amendment falls. I call amendment 116Q in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. The question is that amendment 116Q be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, those opposed. That's 3 in favour, 4 opposed. Amendment 116Q falls. I call amendment 116R in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda Grant, to move or not? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116R be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of amendment 116R, 4, those opposed, 3, the amendment 116R is passed. I call amendment 116S in the name of Graeham Simpson. Are we already debated with amendment 185? Graeham Simpson, to move or not? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116S be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, 4, those opposed, 3, the amendment 116S is agreed to. I call amendment 116T in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda Grant, to move or not? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 116U in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. I call amendment 116V in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 185. The question therefore is that amendment 116V be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 116W in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda Grant, to move or not? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 116G in the name of Andy Whiteman, already debated with amendment 185. Andy Whiteman, to move. The question is that amendment 116G be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, no? Those opposed. That's 5, 2 in favour, and therefore amendment 116G is agreed to. I call amendment 116H in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 185. Is anybody... Thank you, Andy. Andy Whiteman will move this on behalf of Alec Cole-Hamilton. The question is therefore that amendment 116H be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Did you say yes? No. Right. Did nobody say yes then, no? That's good. Okay. Those in favour, those against. 7, 0 against. That amendment falls. I call amendment 116N in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Monica, move or not? Moved. The question is that amendment 116N be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Okay. Those in favour, 4. Those opposed. 3. The amendment 116N is agreed to. I call amendment 116X in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. And I remind members that if amendment 116X is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 116C and 116I. Graham Simpson, the assumption to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116X be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Okay. Those in favour, 4. Those opposed. 3. The amendment 116X is agreed to. Therefore, we'll go to 116. I call amendment 116Y in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 116Y be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour, 3. Those opposed. That's 4. Then, amendment 116Y falls. I call amendment 116J in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Monica Lennon, to move or not. Moved. The question is that amendment 116J be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can't. Somebody would like it. Right. Okay. That's 5. Those opposed. I was joking. Those opposed. Right. Okay. Yeah. That's all right. I'm quite happy to take my comments or anything. 5, 2. Yes, 5, 2. I call amendment 116K in the name of Claire Baker, already debated with amendment 185. Claire Baker, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116K be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, yes. Right. Therefore, amendment 116K is agreed. I call amendment 116Z in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 116Z be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, yes. Okay. It's there for passed. I call amendment 116L in the name of Alasdair Allen, already debated with amendment 185. Alasdair Allen, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116L be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Therefore, 116L has passed. I call amendment 116AA in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 185. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116AA be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of 116A? That's four, those opposed? That's three. Therefore, 116A has passed. Double A has passed. I call amendment 116AB in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Monica Lennon, to move or not? Move. The question is that amendment 116AB be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay. Therefore, amendment 116AB is agreed to. I call amendment 116AC in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 185. Monica Lennon, to move or not? Move. The question is that amendment 116AC be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Those opposed? That's five, two and five. I call amendment 116AD in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 116AD be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of 116AD? That's four. Those opposed? That's three. 116AD is agreed to. I call amendment 116D in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 185. Moved. The question is that amendment 116D be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. That's there for the 116Ds agreed to. I call amendment 116AE in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 185. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move. Andy? No? Of course. The question is that amendment 116AE be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Congratulations. 116AE is there for the agreed to. I call amendment 116M in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 185. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 116M be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Minister, would you like to press or withdraw amendment 116? Press, please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Okay. Those in favour of 116? Those opposed to 116? 116 is there for falls. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I say that that's a perfect example of completely ignoring the advice of the convener and getting through the questions. Well done. Just to suspend? Yes. Yes. We'll suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes to let the minister and the rest of the witnesses move.