I welcome everyone to the 31st meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee in 2018 and remind everyone present to turn off their mobile phones. As meeting papers are provided in digit format, tablets may be used by members during the meeting. This is the seventh and final day of... Yes. If I could crave your indulgence and that you and the committee would allow me to keep my phone on vibrate as my niece is currently in labour. Yes, that would be fine. Thank you. And I hope we get the good news at some stage towards the end of the meeting. Thank you. This is the seventh and final day of stage 2 of the planning bill. I welcome the Minister for Local Government and Housing, Kevin Stewart, and his accompanying officials to today's meeting. Some MSPs who are not committee members but have lodged amendments to the bill will again be in attendance today and are very welcome. I call amendment 334, in the name of John Finnie, in a group on its own. John Finnie, to move and speak to amendment 334. Or will Andy, I believe, you're going to move? I will, convener. Yes, thank you very much. I'm speaking on behalf of John Finnie's amendment 334, which I now move, but I will be seeking leave to withdraw. Enforcement charters seek to ensure that police are pays principle is adhered to through periodic compliance reporting. The collapse of Scottish Coal in 2013 left an estimated restoration funding shortfall of £200 million and significant negative impacts on communities and the environment. A central issue in that was the lack of adequate periodic compliance monitoring. Amendment 334 introduces compliance monitoring, including assessments of the extent to which developments are covered by financial guarantees and a requirement that such reports be made available to the public. Such measures would have proved useful. I would have thought in, for example, Donald Trump's golf course development at many. I'll leave matters there. As I say, I will be seeking leave to withdraw this amendment. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Does any other member for contribution note minister? Thank you, convener. I spoke with Mr Finnie yesterday and while I do not doubt Mr Finnie's good intentions, the amendment would place a significant burden on planning authorities, which would divert planning enforcement resources away from resolving actual breaches of planning control. The amendment makes no distinctions relating to the type or age of the development or the potential impact of any breach of conditions. It would require planning authorities to report on the status of every major development in the area four times a year without any exceptions. Whether the development has yet to commence or is in progress or has been completed. For example, a grant of permission for a housing estate that was built 10 years ago might include a condition that the grass and a strip of land was to be cut twice a year. That condition would have no end date. Under the proposed amendment, the planning authority would have to report four times a year on the status of that housing estate and how it was monitoring that condition. Presumably, if the grass was only cut once a year, it would have to report on what action it would take against the householders as the condition transfers with ownership of the land. That may seem a trivial or absurd example, but it is the effect of having such a broad provision. Compliance with a grant of planning permission is ultimately the responsibility of the developer or the owner of any particular site. I believe that planning authorities are best placed to take decisions locally on developments, conditions and obligations that need close monitoring and how to do that. I recognise that some developments such as mineral workings are a different case from buildings, as planning conditions may relate to their on-going operations and restoration once they cease operating. They may well be the kind of development that planning authorities could be expected to monitor more regularly, but even so that monitoring should be proportionate and based on risk for each case. I do not support the amendment as it stands. I have spoken to Easter Finlay and I have made some suggestions about talking to officials about trying to get the true intention of the amendment in better shape for stage 3. I thank the minister and the appointment to wind up and press a withdrawal. Nothing further to withdraw the amendment. I thank the minister and the appointment wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member present object to the amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 267, in the name of the minister and a group on its own. I call amendment 267, in the name of the minister and a group on its own. This is largely technical amendment section 23 of the bill introduces powers for a planning authority or the Scottish ministers to register a charging order where they have taken action to ensure compliance with the planning enforcement notice or amenity notice. This will help to ensure that the costs of taking action are recovered which should in turn encourage authorities to take action. New section 158d, inserted by section 23 of the bill, requires that a charging order must be in a form prescribed in regulations. This helps Registers of Scotland by ensuring that all the correct information is provided in a standard format. This amendment inserts the same requirement in relation to the document discharging the order once payment has been made. I move amendment 267, in the name of the minister. Thank you very much. Would you like to wind up most? I'm happy, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 267 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Therefore, amendment 267 is agreed to. The question is that section 23 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 310, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 326. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 311, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 326. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 312, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 326. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 23, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 326. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Excuse me. Moved. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to, are we all agreed. Those in favour of amendment 23, 5, before sorry, and those opposed, 3, amendment 23 is agreed to. I call amendment 61 in the name of Alexander Stewart already debated with amendment 55. Alexander Stewart, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to, are we all agreed. Ffm 61, 4, 3. 5. 1. 5. 4. 5. 6. 5. 7. 9. 8. 9. 9. 9. 9. 10. 11. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Do. 16. 14. 19.ти cael ei droswyr mewn gweldau. Gyda unionwg g 짧en pทwn i arlauioíveig diwrnodau. Diano mwy o fewni nhw bron siobwch cym stimulation newydd, a gwaelol ei материwyw, maen nhw'n cael ei sutwr. Unig ein ymwyso� gael yn y cas suits iairel o fy ожидau. I call amendment 148 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 55. Minister to move from a. I call amendment 149 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 55.ASON 18 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 155. flylehau i ddweud hynny, wrth gyrhwun Llywodraethol? Rwy'n gael'r dod roedd yn gwneud geisig i ddweud! Mae rhai amendment 150 yn y cynllun nesaf, yn gwneud yr amendment 55, ac mae ein ddweud hynny, er bod yn ddweud, flas y amendment 62 a 63 yn gweithwyr y bryhyn. Maes i'r ddweud! Roedd yn gweithio cymdeinol. Mae cwerth o'r ddweud yn ddweud am amendment 150, rwy'n gweithwyr? Mae rhai amendment 150 yn gweithwyr. I call amendment 17, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 326. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 17? Five. Those opposed? Two. Amendment 17 is agreed to. I call amendment 269, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 269 and speak to all amendments in the group. Convener, this is a group of technical amendments, which I hope will be uncontroversial. Amendment 269 simply makes it clear that different provisions can be made in regulations and that they may make different provisions for different areas. Amendment 157 provides for certain regulation making powers to be subject to the affirmative procedure. It currently covers regulations under section 251b, introduced by section 26 of the bill, about the appointment and functions and reports submitted by the national planning performance co-ordinator and regulations under paragraph 3 of new schedule 5A amending the places where a master plan consent area may not be made. It also refers to section 3ab2, which would have been included by amendment 116 had that been agreed. Clearly, that will need to be tidied up at stage 3, and I suggest that it could also include other powers that have been inserted during stage 2, which are subject to affirmative procedure. However, I would ask the committee to agree amendments today to implement the Government's commitments on the powers listed. Amendment 275 is to assist clarity in the legislation. It provides that ministers may, by regulations, amend certain provisions, so rather than referring to the date on which something came into force, it will give the actual date. That will save readers having to go back and find out when a particular provision was commenced, which is not always easy. I would ask the committee to agree to those technical amendments. Thank you very much. Does anybody in the other member want to comment? No. In that case, Minister, would you like the opportunity to wind up? I'm fine. Thank you, convener. The question is that amendment 269 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 269 is agreed to. I call amendment 151, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 55, and minister to move formally. I move, convener. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 151 is agreed to. I call amendment 158, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 184, minister to move formally. I move, convener. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 158 is agreed to. I call amendment 18, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 326, Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of amendment 18, please? Three. Those opposed? Four. Amendment 18 falls. I call amendment 19, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 330 and 322. Graham Simpson to move amendment 19 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. I'll formally move amendment 19. This revises the 1997 act and would beef up protections for national scenic areas. The act currently reads where it appears to the Scottish ministers that an area is of outstanding scenic value in a national context and that the special protection measures specified in subsection 2 are appropriate for it. They may, by direction, designate the area as a national scenic area, where any area for the time being designated as a national scenic area, special attention is to be paid to the desirability of safeguarding or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise. Removing the words, the desirability of, would give an extra level of protection to these areas. The phrase is, in itself, subjective. Wording needs to be tight in legislation, as we've seen throughout stage 2, and this is not. The minister could regard it as desirable to safeguard or enhance the character of an area, while someone else could take the opposite view. Removing the words would leave the paragraph reading that, quote, special attention is to be paid to safeguarding or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise. I think that that's more robust, and I'm backed on this by the National Trust for Scotland. That's that amendment. I'd like to discuss Alex Cole's Hamilton's amendment 322, which deals with wild lands. Now, we all value the wild lands of Scotland convener. They're among some of the most diverse natural environments in Europe. The rapid expansion of onshore wind farms has led to the worrying infringement of wild land. Often fragile ecosystems in peatland are disturbed by the installation and operation of wind turbines, and we think it's inappropriate and the unique designation of wild land along with their special protection measures should be adhered to. However, I do have concerns around the drafting of Mr Cole Hamilton's amendment. There's a lack of clarity around the wild land definition. What does the amendment mean by, for example, semi-natural? Will there be a consultation to determine where this provision should be appropriately applied? Will the member take an intervention? Yes. I'm grateful to the member for taking an intervention. When I was working with Clarks to draft this amendment, we felt a lot of those questions could be answered in statutory guidance behind the Bill to determine what the definition of semi-rural meant was not necessary for the face of the Bill. There is mention in the amendment of Scottish Natural Heritage. Have they been asked if they're happy with it? I haven't heard from them. Are we in danger of cutting off our noses despite our faces here? Much of the highlands could be considered wild land. If we're saying no to any development in these areas, then there's a danger of thwarting change which may be welcomed by locals and be economically beneficial. Now, convener, I wouldn't normally quote a community council here, but I was quite taken by the submission from Donald Campbell, the chair of Donets Community Council. Mr Campbell said, the proposed wild land policy risks having a detrimental effect on development and sustainability within our communities. The current regime works, he says. In wild land area 34, Ray Casley wild land area, we have two hydro power stations, a commercial fish farm and a telecom station, and yet this is considered by SNH to be wild land. The income from these projects will encourage the estates to diversify their activities, becoming more self-sufficient and creating numerous jobs. This is important in ensuring that the jobs created will be supported over the long term. Community Land Scotland says that the amendment, if passed, could have a, quote, significantly detrimental impact on rural re-population. Due to those concerns, convener, I'm unable to support the amendment. I've finished. Okay, thank you, Graham. Rhoda Grant speaks to amendment 330 and other amendments in the group. Recently published research report by Community Land Scotland and Inherit, the Institute of Heritage and Sustainable Human Development, found that communities feel locked out of Scottish landscape policy due to the participation deficit that leaves the designation process largely the preserve of landscape professionals. This community participation deficit, identified by Community Land Scotland and Inherit, report is contrary to the principle of community empowerment that was legally enshrined by this Parliament. In order that these designations work properly, local people must have ownership of them and should be involved in how the designations are managed and operated. If I can just quote a little from the report, the interviews indicated that there is a strong sense of exclusion from the process of assessing and designating landscapes and from making key decisions about landscape matters. It goes on. The interviews indicated that the effects of this deficit can be subtle but profound. Exclusion breeds a sense of insecurity and alienation as people feel locked out of decisions that affect their lives and feel that things that matter to them are not being recognised. Amendment 330 only applies to national scenic areas. It seeks to involve communities by putting an obligation on Scottish ministers to consult with them with regard to the management of local designations and to report on that consultation as part of their annual report. While this amendment focuses on national scenic areas, there may be scope at stage 3 to extend its coverage to include all natural heritage and historic designations if there was an appetite within the Parliament for that to happen. I am keen to hear the committee's views and those of the ministers as to whether they agree with this principle and would also be agreeable to extend this to all designations. If I can turn quickly to amendment 322 and reiterate the concerns that this amendment might have on repopulation, something I have spoken before the committee about in the past, I think it is really important that we look at repopulating those areas. Many people say that wild lands have been managed through the generations. Recently, I heard a presentation about the impact that crofting has on lands. Those are not wild lands, they are lands that have been managed in the past. If we do not encourage that management and indeed encourage people to move back into those areas and manage them, we will not have those lands that we seek to protect. Thank you very much. Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to amendment 322 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. It's been great sharing this experience with you. I move 322 in my name. I'd like to start by saying that this is not an assault on onshore wind farm development, nor is it an assault on the growth or repopulation of remote and rural communities. I think that there is a view that is widely held across stakeholders and the general public that we could be doing more to recognise and protect areas of wild land in Scotland. Indeed, there is empirical evidence of that in a variety of opinion polls that show that the public don't believe that we've done enough to take this agenda forward. The member refers to the general public, but I wonder what consultation the member has had on his amendment with the people of the Highlands? I've had quite a good deal of correspondence, and I freely admit that opinion is split on this, but that is politics, and we have to pick aside. I choose to press the issue to protect and recognise wild land. I would not be bringing this amendment if I thought that this was an assault on onshore wind farms. I passionately believe that we need to do more to encourage and develop onshore wind. I recognise the need to repopulate and grow our existing rural communities. This is not a barrier to that. This is a power to ministers not a duty. It is a tool in their arsenal that will naturally be aware of the competing demands of our climate change targets and, indeed, our housing development targets and the needs of sustaining and repopulating remote and rural communities. It is not something a decision that they would take in isolation of those, but it gives them the opportunity to define and protect areas of wild land. Wild land defines us as a nation. People think of Scotland and they think of wild land, whether that is through what they see in Hollywood movies or in their own photographs from tourist holidays. It is something that draws people to us, and it is an important part of our ecosystem. I am the RSPB species champion of the rusty sphagnum bog moss—they call me the moss moss. Sphagnum bog moss is a hugely important indicator of the CO2 storage capacity of our peat bogs, and the moss is, of course, exceedingly efficient in absorbing CO2. Peat bogs in particular are one of my primary drivers for supporting the inclusion of this amendment. To conclude, convener and fellow members of the committee, it is a power to ministers, not a duty. They will recognise that this comes not in isolation, but they have to balance against priorities both for onshore wind development and, indeed, the repopulation and growth of our remote and rural communities. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. Can I just say that we welcome you sharing this experience with us? Annabelle Ewing, you wish to speak. Thank you, convener. I would like to make some comments specifically about amendment 322, and I will not be supporting that. I do not believe that you can rule out in all circumstances development on such land. I would ask what about the right of the people of remote rural communities to have homes and to be able to continue to croft. In that regard, Isi McPhail, a land expert and resident in Ascent, described the wildlife land designations impinging on common grazings of north ascent. She told Community Land Scotland at the RAGM in Stirling in May of this year, and I quote, this so-called wild land is our domestic space for fruit harvest, so that was the view of certainly. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention on that point. I absolutely recognise that point of view. I share that point of view. This is not a block or a barrier to the wishes of the people of the Highlands. This is a new power to ministers who will not take that decision in a vacuum. They will take decisions if decisions are needed to be taken, with full cognisance of the views of the person of which you just spoke. I hear what the member says, but, of course, whilst it is important to have champions of various species, it is also important to have champions for people in our most rural and remote communities. I think that you would find that, if you had conducted a wild, wide consultation with people in the Highlands, that perhaps they did not quite take the same view as the member on the matter. If I could quote also from a letter that I think we all receive from Scottish Renewables on this particular amendment, and they say, and I quote, the broad definition of wild land, and they go on to say, could conceivably exclude the development of any onshore wind, hydropower, solar or bioenergy scheme in Scotland. They conclude that, therefore, indeed, a blanket designation like that set out in the proposed amendment to the bill could have a very detrimental impact on progress towards Scotland's renewable energy and climate change targets. I think those are very serious considerations to be taken into account indeed. For all the reasons that I have just explained, convener, I will not be supporting Mr Cole Hamilton's amendment. I do not see the need for that amendment. On amendment 322, we could, if we had the time to debate this for a very long time, it is a quite substantial policy question. As Mr Cole Hamilton knows, the wild land concept already has a role in the planning system, and this amendment would essentially, were ministers to be minded to implement the power that they are being given, put that on a statutory footing. I am not persuaded at this moment that that is an appropriate thing to do. I am sympathetic to the notion, but it is a major policy change to create a new statutory designation or rather to give ministers the powers to do that. I am sympathetic, but I also have quite substantial problems with the very concept of wild land. I always have done that, and I say that as someone who used to be a trustee of the John Muir trust. As SNH says in its landscape policy in existing wild land areas, and I quote, measuring wildness is inherently difficult as it is a subjective quality experienced differently by different people. The decision that we have before us today is a fairly straightforward decision as to whether, in fact, we follow Mr Cole Hamilton's proposition that this should be put on a statutory footing or not. I am not persuaded that this is the time to do that. I am not persuaded that the argument has been sufficiently rehearsed and debated. I see arguments on both sides, but I am not persuaded at this stage that I will be voting against both amendments. I will be supporting Graham Simpson's amendment 19. The amendments highlight a key tension about how we manage our wild and scenic areas, which are so important to Scotland's identity and international image, while also ensuring the sustainability of the communities that live and work there. The committee has already agreed to amendments that are put forward by Ms Grant that will require both the national planning framework and local development plans to take into account depopulation in rural areas and to support resettlement where that is appropriate. Ms Grant has spoken eloquently about the importance of supporting vibrant communities in those areas. We must be very careful about projecting an urban-centric view of our landscapes on to rural areas if we want them to thrive. The special protection that is given by formal designation of wild land areas could have significant repercussions for communities in those areas. It would therefore be necessary to take special care over the extent and location of any designated wild land area to take all of that into account. Even taking a kind of existing wild land maps, it could not be assumed that the same areas of land would be designated. Wild land is already given strong protection in national planning policy. The Government recognises the value of wild land in Scotland and sought to achieve a reasonable balance in the current Scottish planning policy between protecting those areas without unduly restricting rural development. However, it is clear that not everyone feels that we got that balance right. Work commissioned by Community Land Scotland reports that communities feel locked out by landscape-driven policies. Some have suggested that, rather than wild land, those areas should be known as clearances country. We need to revisit that debate. Rather than significantly further embedding our existing policy on wild land by making it a statutory designation, we need to give it very careful consideration when we come to review the national planning framework and Scottish planning policy. I believe that policy is the right place to take this forward, allowing for all the different circumstances that apply in different areas to be properly considered. There are some significant technical difficulties with this amendment. As Scottish national natural heritage clearly states—and Mr Wightman has already touched on—identifying areas of wild land is inherently subjective. I understand that the areas shown on the 2014 map are the larger and more remote areas where wildness qualities are most strongly expressed. However, SNH is also clear that what does or does not constitute wildness depends on who is experiencing the area and even how each individual feels about that experience. Ms Ewing has articulated some of that. The 2014 map was not developed with the intention to use it to define a formal designation. SNH has published descriptions of wild land areas that show that even within each area there are varying degrees of wildness. Given the differing views on the issue and the technical complexities that are involved, I feel strongly that amendment 322 should not be supported and that there should be a fuller and more open and inclusive debate on rural planning as part of the next national planning framework. That would be at risk if the bill added more weight on one side by giving wild land areas such a statutory designation. That is a sensitive issue that needs flexible solutions tailored to individual areas. That is not something legislation can easily deliver, but it is what our planning system is designed to do. We already have designated national scenic areas, which are long established, are more limited in scale than wild land. I agree with Ms Grant that it is important that communities are consulted by Scottish ministers if they are designating or changing national scenic areas. That would help to ensure that any decisions are undertaken with full and meaningful involvement of local people. However, I do not support amendment 330 because of the automatic requirement for annual reporting. It would be more reasonable to provide a report in any year in which such consultation is taking place. I would ask Ms Grant not to press her amendment as drafted, but I have no problem with the consultation requirement itself. Turning to Mr Simpson's amendment 19, the words desirability in section 263A2 signals that safeguarding or enhancement of the character or appearance of a national scenic area is to be treated as a desired or sought-after objective. The requirement is to pay special attention to that objective. Section 263A2 is not merely creating a duty to consider whether or not safeguarding or enhancing of the character or appearance of a national scenic area is desirable. It seems odd to remove the statutory statement that this is a desirable objective from a provision intended to protect national scenic areas. There is no question that national scenic areas already have a high level of statutory protection, and the wording proposed in amendment 19 would not, in my view, strengthen that any further, so I do not support this amendment. I will be pressing amendment 19 extremely brief because we have had a very good debate. Disappointed to hear the minister say that he is not in favour of amendment 19, it is a pretty technical amendment, and I do think that, as I explained earlier, it would beef things up. I do not plan to rehearse the arguments around 322. We have been over that, and having heard the arguments around Rhoda Grant's amendment 330, I will not be supporting that. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 19 be agreed to, are we all agreed to? Those in favour of amendment 19? Four. Those opposed? Three. Amendment 19 is agreed to. I call amendment 330 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 19. Rhoda Grant to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. Sorry, the motion to do. Amendment 19 was not moved. I call amendment 322 in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19. Alec Cole-Hamilton to move or not move? Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 322 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Amendment 322, right? Those in favour? Zero. Those opposed? Seven. Unanimously, 322 is not agreed to. I call amendment 335 in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 318. Andy, will you be moving or not moving? Not moving. I call amendment 81 in the name of Graham Simpson in a group on its own. Graham Simpson to move and speak to amendment 81. Thanks a lot, convener. I have spoken a lot throughout particularly this stage of the bill about the need to frontload the system. I have spoken about how some of my amendments are a genuine attempt to do that, and this is another one. The amendment would mean councils having to compile lists of locally significant buildings and inviting residents to suggest what should be on those lists. The amendment would allow local residents to nominate buildings for inclusion in this list and for there to be an appeal mechanism to ensure that the buildings are properly protected. This does stem from personal experience, and it has led me to conclude that we need a better system for protecting what we value. I will be extremely brief on this one. There was a very old, centuries-old pub near where I live. It does not matter if it is a pub or not. It is in East Kilbride, a new town. It does not have many old buildings, but people really valued that building. There was a proposal to demolish the pub. Nobody wanted it to be demolished, but it was demolished because there was nothing in place legally to stop that. I just felt that that was not really an acceptable position. I thought that we should be looking for something better. Introducing the idea of giving people the chance to say what they value should please the minister who has talked throughout about wanting to get people involved in the planning system and to front-load the system. There is a similar thing in England. It is not quite the same. Local heritage listing. Local lists in England play an essential role in building and reinforcing a sense of local character and distinctiveness in the historic environment. It enables the significance of any building or site on the list to be better considered in planning applications. A local list can celebrate the breadth of the historic environment of a local area by encompassing the full range of heritage assets within a community. I note that the Built Environment Forum Scotland observed that amendment 81 would provide more protection for locally significant buildings than currently exists for buildings listed under the planning listed buildings in Conservation Area Scotland Act 1997. Can the member indicate which kinds of buildings he thinks would make it onto the list that could not be listed under the 97 act? Would that, for example, be a building where a famous person was born, which otherwise is devoid of particular architectural merit? That would be a good example. The other example is the one that I gave, which was local to me. Basically, you are inviting people to say what they think should be on the list and the decision that is taken by the council. They would take the decision on what should be on that list. Would the member take a further intervention? Would it not perhaps be an alternative approach to seek to amend the existing listed buildings regime to broaden its scope? I have quite a lot of sympathy for the notion that, for example, there are fairly small but inconsequential buildings as one just up the road here where the Treaty of Union was signed. There are ones that I know of in towns around here where famous people were born and people value those buildings. So, would it not be an alternative to expand the grounds on which listing might take place rather than introduce a new list? I think that Mr Whiteman makes a good point. When you look at the list of building systems, most members of the public have no idea how to operate it. They do not know, for example, that they can ask requests that a building is listed. People do not know that. What I am suggesting here is introducing a system where you do involve people, you invite people to say what they value. Having said that, a complete ban on demolition of certain buildings would certainly require some procedural safeguards, which I accept the amendment currently lacks. It could be argued that it may be more proportionate to introduce it as a discretionary power, linked to the development plan rather than development management. I am certainly not averse to making such changes for stage 3. Should the committee back the amendment in its current form? I am guessing the spirit behind this, is there to be a presumption against demolition of such buildings? Does the member recognise that some of those buildings could be at risk? There could be building standard safety issues. Is this not to be looked at in isolation? Is the member mindful of those other considerations? Of course. I accept that the amendment is not the finished article. However, I think that it is a good idea. It really meets what the committee was saying in stage 1, that we need to have more front loading. It is about involving people in a way that they are not at the moment. I accept more work that needs to be done. I will do that work hopefully with the minister. I would be very keen to work with the minister on this and the cross-parties, but I will be moving it. Does the member take a final intervention? He touched on front loading and the involvement of communities. In your earlier remarks, you talked about a possible appeal system that would sit alongside it. Is it your intention that that would be an appeal that could be initiated by members of the community or community groups? Or are you thinking more about the owner of the buildings? I was thinking more of the owner, because obviously if you put somebody's building on a list, they may take a different view. We need to safeguard people who own the buildings as well. That was the intention behind that. You want to leave that up to ministers who have that right of appeal. If I could make a general point first before I turn to the amendment itself, I can only deal with the words on the page in front of me. It is up to members to ensure that amendments that they put forward do what they intend them to do. There has been much talk in recent weeks of fixing things at stage 3, but the best opportunity for scrutiny of the details is now during stage 2. No-one can guarantee that that will be accepted at stage 3 and whether a necessary fix will be agreed to. Members must be aware that whatever is agreed at stage 2 may end up on the statute book. If the amendment does not say what they intend it to achieve, I recommend that folk do not move those amendments. If I can turn to the matter at hand, convener, the Government understands the value and the importance that people place on the historic environment and local heritage where they live and work. It is clear that people want a listing system that recognises buildings of local importance that may not qualify for national listing. In a consultation by Historic Environment Scotland in 2017, 89 per cent of respondents wanted such a system in their area, and 70 per cent of those wanted to be involved in that process. Scottish planning policy already encourages decision makers to consider the interests of undesignated heritage. In addition, following that initial survey, HES has been exploring proposals for local listing as part of the review of designations policy, which will be available for consultation in January. The new policy will actively take into account heritage that is not nationally designated and has local heritage interests. One possible option could see local listing being compiled by community groups and, potentially, ratified by local authorities as material consideration and planning matters. We are working on that issue, but I do not believe that this amendment is a helpful way of addressing it. Thank you, minister of taking intervention. It would be helpful if you could confirm whether the kind of propositions that might come out of the consultation that you have just mentioned would require primary legislation to implement? As far as I am aware of Mr Wightman's question, it would not require primary legislation in that regard, because it will be dealt with under material considerations. However, I will confirm all of that in writing to Mr Wightman so that he knows exactly what the intention around all of that is. We are working on that issue, as I said, and I do not believe that this amendment is a helpful way of addressing it. Firstly, I do not think that it is necessary to impose a statutory duty on all planning authorities to prepare lists of locally significant buildings. That would be an additional financial burden for them and, as I said, there are other possible options. Ortonny Islands Council piloted a local listing scheme in one parish in 2011. However, it decided not to replicate that across the council area because of the costs involved and implications for staff resources. Instead, it found that appropriate planning policies and guidance through its revised local development plan provide the protection for local heritage that is needed. That has resolved some of the difficulties that Mr Wightman has talked of. Secondly, and more significantly, the proposed approach to buildings included on a local list would be inconsistent with the established system of both designation and management of buildings on the national list. It would not allow locally significant buildings to be demolished in any circumstances, but it provides no control of alterations that could completely change the character of the building. That ban on demolition creates restrictions on the development of the site without any provision for consent to be obtained to allow development. Such a blanket restriction on development, which is no scope to consider individual cases, would almost certainly be viewed as a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the property rights of the owner. The restriction on development would be much greater than for listed buildings or buildings in a conservation area. The existing controls on works to listed buildings, including demolition, enable planning authorities to consider all the relevant circumstances at the time. They must have special regards to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest, but they can also take into account the wider public benefits. While developers generally try hard to conserve historic features, it may occasionally be necessary to demolish a historic structure to enable wider redevelopment. For example, an old bridge may have to be removed to allow for flood defence works or because it has become dangerous to public safety. Any protection for locally significant buildings should surely allow for a similar system of consent for necessary works. I would ask Mr Simpson to withdraw the amendment and to allow historic environment Scotland to take forward its consultation on approaches to recognition of locally important heritage. Thank you, convener. Graham Simpson, to wind up and press up the drop. Thanks, convener. Based on what the minister said, this comes out of the we are working on it file, which he also used when we were discussing land value capture. Everything he said suggests that he actually agrees with the idea. If he does agree, I cannot see why he would be so negative around this particular amendment. Intervention. I am again the amendment for the simple reason that again we have unintended consequences around about the amendment as it is drafted and it is worded at this moment in time. I reiterate the point that the amendment, as it stands, would not allow locally significant buildings to be demolished in any circumstances. That cannot be right for many reasons, including the reasons that Ms Lennon pointed out around about danger. The ministers are basically saying, leave it to us, do not put this in legislation, we will sort this out. It will not even be included in any legislation. Parliament has an opportunity here to do the right thing and to deliver what the minister says he wants. Would the member take a brief intervention? Yes. I hear what the member says, but if the amendment seems to have been considered in terms of its current drafting, perhaps it needs further work, why are we being asked to vote in something that is not going to work? I just do not get that. If the member wishes to do something at stage 3, that is fairly up to the member, but if this is seen as unworkable, why are we being asked to vote on it? Well, the minister does not even want it at stage 3. I will be pressing this. It is not unusual that we have had a number of amendments throughout stage 2, which members have accepted are not the finished article. They have pledged to go away and work on them for stage 3. That falls into that category, but I do think that it is a good idea. I am keen to see what the mood of the committee is. A further intervention. I apologise for my voice today. I promise that I would not speak very much, but I think that that raises some interesting questions. One of Graham's intentions behind emotion appears to be to encourage participation locally. You have talked about front-loading and that important community engagement. I am a bit nervous about your intention to bring in a right to appeal, but you are kind of leading the community on a little bit. If a planning authority says, no, this building is not locally significant enough, there is no right of appeal for that community. Now you have said that you have an ace card up your sleeve for stage 3 on equalising the appeal system. I would just thought that you might have brought some of that thinking to this amendment before asking us to vote today. Mr Daniels, Paul Daniels, would you like to ask of us? He claims to be a magician. There is no ace card today. I shall wrap it up there. Thank you very much. Are you pressing on with the ranks up? I will press it. Thank you. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of amendment 81? Two. Those opposed? Five. Therefore, amendment 81 is not agreed to. I call amendment 90 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendment 91. Andy Wightman, to move amendment 90 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Are these two amendments 1991 deal with trees, tree preservation orders and conservation areas? Evidence was given to the committee at stage 1 by the tree officers group, who are a group of professionals who work in local authorities on matters to do with trees and their governance. We made recommendations that the minister should consider the observations that were made to us, but in the minister's response to the committee's stage 1 report, he indicated that he would not be doing any further work on that. As a result, I took it upon myself to engage with tree officers groups over the summer to ascertain what their concerns were. It appeared to me that their concerns fell into two groups, which reflect the amendments. The first was that, if tree preservation orders themselves do not, if they are silent on the question in the actual order of an individual tree, then potentially permitted development orders can override TPO's and they were of the view that this should not happen. The second concern related to trees and conservation areas is, whereas I understand it, if any works are to be done on a tree or any proposal comes forward in a conservation area that would affect a tree, the only means by which a planning authority can currently effectively protect that tree or refuse to consent is by notifying a tree preservation order, which is a complicated thing to do within short timescales. I move amendment 90, but I intend to seek leave to withdraw it and will not be pressing amendment 91. That is following discussions with the minister's officials in which we have shared our perspectives on what is the mischief that is sought to be addressed here. I think that we are kind of agreed that the mischief is not well identified yet, but there is an agreement, and I would be grateful for the minister's confirmation that there remains a concern potentially. I would be keen that the minister and his officials have a robust conversation with the tree officer's group to ensure that, if they have legitimate concerns about the operation of the tree preservation order, system or trees and conservation areas, remedies can be introduced to the bill. I took the view when this evidence came forward that we have a planning bill every 10 years or so, and that if there is any tidying up to be done in the planning system, then, obviously, a piece of primary legislation is the place to do that. In discussion with the minister and his officials, I think that one committee might recollect amendments 19 and 20 where areas of the planning system were deemed to be in need of tidying up. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm that he is willing to have those discussions with that sector and confirm to me that if there are any areas that could be done with some tidying up or easing the work that is necessary in order to make properly protect trees that planning authorities think should be protected in contraband areas, that in fact does that. I will leave that there. Thank you, convener. I begin by confirming to Mr Wightman that officials will continue to talk to the tree officer's group. They may have a case, but, as it stands, there is insufficient evidence about the impacts of the changes proposed. I realise that Mr Wightman is not going to press those amendments, but I think that it might be helpful if I put into context some of the discussions that have been going on around this and where the legislation currently lies. I begin by saying that everyone agrees that trees play an important part in both the quality of our urban and rural environments. That is why there is already a range of measures in place and legislative duties in place to ensure both the preservation and planting of trees, so that our trees and woodlands continue to be protected. In Scottish planning policy, there is a strong presumption against removal of any woodland and any approval for woodland removal should be conditional on achieving significant net public benefits. The two amendments relate to trees that are situated within a conservation area and tree preservation orders, or TPOs, which are a well-established mechanism in the planning system. TPOs can be used by planning authorities to protect trees and groups of trees, which are considered important for amenity, cultural or historic significance. A TPO made by the planning authority under section 160 of the 1997 act may prohibit works being carried out to trees without consent from the planning authority. In addition, if a tree is in a conservation area but is not protected by a TPO, then it is given a level of protection under section 172 of the 1997 act. In terms of section 172, it is an offence to carry out certain works such as uprooting, felling or lopping to such a tree without first notifying the planning authority and so giving them an opportunity to protect the tree by making a TPO. They must do that within six weeks of the notification otherwise the works can go ahead. A grant of planning permission, whether it is granted through permitted development or through a planning application being approved, does not itself remove the protections provided to trees by a TPO or in a conservation area under section 172 of the 1997 act. However, a TPO may itself include exemptions from the prohibition on works without consent, which it creates. Scottish Government guidance recommends that that should include limited exemptions for works that enjoy permitted development rights. That allows the likes of SEPA and utilities companies to carry out necessary works without requiring separate consent for anything that affects trees. With amendment 90 and the first part of amendment 91, I understand that Mr Whiteman was trying to limit or remove those exemptions for permitted development rights. I do not support that intention because it could restrict or delay the ability of statutory undertakers to carry out necessary works to provide and maintain infrastructure. For example, it would create additional burdens for planning authorities for work that, in the vast majority of cases, would be approved, but that is not what the amendments would have done. Bear with me, convener, because that gets quite technical, but I think that the committee deserves to hear those things. Section 166 of the 1997 act allows for the cutting down, topping and lopping of a tree notwithstanding that it is protected by a TPO in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include under paragraph BA of subsection 6, where the work is authorised by an order granting development consent. Section 1606 does not authorise any works to a tree. It just prevents a TPO from prohibiting certain works to a tree in the specified circumstances. Subsection 1A of section 172 of the 1997 act, similarly, does not apply the requirement for notification of work to trees in a conservation area if the work is authorised by an order granting development consent. Mr Whiteman's amendments stated that nothing in those subsections is to be taken as permitting development order under section 30 to authorise the uprooting, felling or lopping of trees, but those subsections do not refer to orders under section 30 of the 1997 act, which grants planning permission development consent, as defined in section 277 of the 1997 act, relates to consent under the Planning Act 2008, which is UK legislation. In terms of section 31 of the act, development consent is required for development that is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. Those are almost all large-scale projects located in England and Wales, and the only case where it would be required in Scotland would be for certain cross-country oil or gas pipelines where one end is in England or Wales and the other end is in Scotland, so nothing in the sections mentioned in amendments 90 and 91 would permit a development under section 30 to override the existing protections in any case. I know that this is not the easiest part of the legislation to follow, and I would like to thank Mr Whiteman for taking the time to discuss those amendments with officials. I am glad that he has agreed that he will not move them. I think that I may well just leave it at that, because we go into a huge amount more technicality, but I have given the committee an insight into how complex all of this is and the unintended consequences. I am very pleased that Mr Whiteman has spoken to officials and that we will continue to speak with the tree officers group, and we will continue to update Mr Whiteman about those conversations. With that, convener, I will keep steam now. I thank the minister for putting on record some of that during discussions on this. I did encounter the 2008 act, the UK statute on international infrastructure, and I would just put on the record that it appeared to me that some planning authorities were interpreting the consequential provisions of the 2008 act as they were inserted into the 97 act incorrectly. Mr Whiteman will take an intervention. If Mr Whiteman wants to pass on those authorities where he thinks that they are interpreting the legislation incorrectly, we will have a look at that and we will talk and write to the authorities concerned. To go a bit further than that, if we find out that this is a widespread scenario, I am more than willing to write to all authorities to clarify or to get the chief planner to do so. I thank the minister for that. I am not sure I intend to tell tales out of school to the some of this information that I deduce from conversations that I had. I think that the minister gets the point that there is potentially some confusion in this area and, potentially, some clarification in tidying up that needs to be done to ensure that the important work of protecting trees, particularly in conservation areas, could be more effectively administered. Am I withdrawing or not moving 90? I think that I can't leave to withdraw it. Andy Wightman wishes to withdraw his amendment. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? Andy Wightman has already debated with amendment 90. Andy Wightman to move or not move? I call amendment 152 in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, grouped with amendment 182. Gordon Lindhurst to move amendment 152 and speak to both amendments in the group. Welcome, Gordon. Thank you very much, convener. Just to set out very briefly, the purpose of amendment 152 is simply to stop a gap in the current legislative scheme. That gap means that neighbour notification of for consent is required if a building is not listed but is not required if a building is listed. That is not only counterintuitive, but it places listed buildings on a less protected level than non-listed buildings. That, in turn, can affect not just owners of buildings but tenants and residents of such buildings. Neighbours in listed buildings are often only aware that works are to be carried out and that listed building consent has been granted when workmen arrive and start carrying out works such as forming openings in walls, which may have structural implications in a building, installing additional bathroom facilities that can affect drainage or altering communal spaces that can affect things as serious as fire safety. All that amendment does is seek to remove the anomaly that means that neighbour notification requirements are not required for listed buildings and it simply makes the requirement the same for both listed and unlisted buildings. The amendment has the support of Edinburgh World Heritage, the Coburn Association and the Built Environment Forum Scotland. I should say in the interest of transparency that I am an owner of a flat in a listed building in Edinburgh. I would move amendment 152. I am happy to take any questions from committee members. Andy Wightman, to speak to amendment 182 and other amendments in a group. Thank you very much, convener. I support Gordon Luthorst's amendment 152. My amendment 182 was lodged with the intention of sending a signal to the owners of listed buildings who are doing nothing with them, but, apparently, waiting for the day the building becomes too dangerous and has to be demolished. It seeks to send a signal within the planning system and make clear that there is a presumption against the use of that building for any other purpose other than that would affect the reason for the listing. I am aware that the committee has not been persuaded to make good law in planning. I am aware that much of the intention of my amendment would be better secured under property law reform. When I read the amendment, and it has been several months since it was drafted, I came to the conclusion that I am not persuaded by my own amendment. It has some flaws and logic. It is good to come fresh to these things. I will not be moving it when invited. Thank you very much. Can I congratulate the member in his honesty? Does anybody else have any contribution on that case? Amendment 152, in the name of Gordon Luthorst, would lead to significant duplication for both planning authorities and the neighbours of buildings subject to listed building applications. The current position is that applications for listed building consent have to be advertised by a notice on or near the building, and notice is published in a local newspaper and the Edinburgh Gazette. Where external works are considered, development that affects the character or appearance of the building, a separate planning application is required, and this triggers direct notification to neighbouring premises. In both cases, the notice must allow at least 21 days for representations to be made. The amendment would mean that, in many cases, where external works are proposed to a listed building, neighbours would receive two notifications and, quite possibly, would feel the need to make two representations. They would also receive notifications for internal works, such as the fitting of a new kitchen or redecoration, which are unlikely to have any impact on neighbours. Does the minister accept that, when the planning authority is taking matters into account, they can only take into account representations on the application in front of them? If someone has made representations to a separate application—for example, a planning application—would that not be a matter for that application alone? In terms of material considerations for the listed building consent, we do not have to look at the submissions in front of them to that application. What we have here is a situation of duplication. I will come back to some of those points in a little while. Duplication that adds to the bureaucracy when I think that most of us have agreed that we actually want to streamline the system and get rid of bureaucracy. Beyond that, I find it rather bizarre that you have to notify your neighbours if you want to redecorate or put in a new kitchen. That may be fine for those folks who want to keep up with the Joneses and find out what everybody is doing, but I do not think that that is a requirement. The minister talks about duplication, but if something is simply advertised in the press, who spends their whole evening reading notifications in the press every day or week of the year to make sure that their neighbour is not submitting an application? I do not think that that is a valid comment on that. Internal alterations— I hope that I have a chance to sum up. I am sorry. Forgive my lack of knowledge of the very complicated procedures that apply in this Parliament.  No fees are charged for listed building consent, so that would also be a substantial additional burden for planning authorities with no income to support it. Representation on listed building application is likely to be on the same grounds as on the planning application, and as most folk would be unlikely to understand the difference. The notification and advertisement requirements are set out in regulations. Mr Lindhurst has tried to import wording from the planning regulations into the primary legislation on listed buildings, and there are some technical problems with that. I am happy to consider whether there are any significant gaps in the current arrangements and to amend the regulations if necessary, but this amendment, as it stands, goes much too far, and I cannot support it. Thank you, minister. Gordon Lindhurst here, wind up and press off the menu. Well, the minister's comments are not persuasive in my submission. The reason that they do not assist proprietors in a block, for example, internal alterations can be major, they can affect other properties within a block, for example, in a listed building installation of a new bathroom in a flat above the flat below, the flooding possibilities that arise out of such things, alterations of… I think that the minister has had to say and I… Well, I will allow him to intervene briefly perhaps. Thank you. It is not just a newspaper advert, as Mr Lindhurst well knows. The listed building application requires a notice to be displayed in the building as well, so it is not just newspaper advertising, it is a notice that has to be displayed. Well, I think that, as the minister well knows, such advertisements are not always displayed prominently in a place where a proprietor of a building will see it, and indeed a proprietor may wish to have notification but have a flat let out on a long term to a long term tenant, for example, the tenant may not see the significance of a notice that happens to be placed on a street railing some distance from the flat they live in. I think that internal alterations can be very significant fire safety implications, other matters that I've touched on, and that is something that a proprietor is not notified of in an individual sense, in a way that a proprietor will realise what is going on and take notice of it. I do press the amendment. The question is that amendment 152 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 152? Four. Those opposed? Three. 152 is if we're agreed to. I call amendment 182 in the name of Andy Wightman. Already debated with amendment 152, and is Andy Wightman to move or not to move? That's the one that doesn't persuade you, Andy. This is the one that doesn't persuade me, all right? Yeah, no. I call amendment 231 in the name of Rhoda Grant in a group on its own. I move amendment 231, which makes provision for compulsory acquisition of land that has been identified for the resettling of previously inhabited settlements in local development plans. I've spoken in previous meetings about the need to repopulate many rural areas, and I won't rehearse those arguments now. This amendment therefore provides a means to resettle land that's identified in such plans and for that purpose. This is a useful backstop power for furthering resettlement of land. Of course, any such power of compulsory purchase cannot be used unless a final step in the sale of land is otherwise not going to happen. In this case, it could only be used if that land had been allocated in the local development plan and had therefore been subject to public consultation scrutiny and decision by the local authority. Without such ultimate powers, the cost of repopulation might be thwarted by powerful private interests. It's a useful power to have available. Having such powers focuses minds, but, hopefully, those powers will never be needed or used. However, it does mean that that does not mean that they should not exist, providing leverage to serve the public interest. Thank you, minister. Thank you, convener. I've previously set out my thoughts on Rhoda Grant's amendments on rural resettlement, and I agree with the aim of addressing the depopulation of rural areas. That, in principle, resettling previously populated areas could help to achieve that. In the earlier sessions, the committee has already supported amendments from Rhoda Grant and from Alasr Allan on the subject. As a result of the desirability of increasing the population of rural areas and of allocating land for resettlement, it will need to be considered in the national planning framework and local development plans respectively. However, I cannot support amendment 231 in Ms Grant's name because it is unnecessary. Local authorities already have the power under section 189 of the 1997 act to compulsory acquire land by CPO in order to secure development or redevelopment where that is identified in a development plan or where the land is required for a purpose that is necessary to achieve in the interests of proper planning in the area. If an authority includes policies and allocates suitable locations for resettlement and local development plans and needs to compulsory purchase the land to deliver that, the authority already has a mechanism for doing so under section 189 as it stands. Given the minister's comments, I will not press the motion at this time. I will go and review what he has said and see if it adequately fulfills the purpose of my amendment. Rhoda Grant wishes to withdraw her amendment. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? The amendment is therefore withdrawn. I call amendment 336 in the name of Claudia Beamish, grouped with amendments 337, 338 and 339. Claudia Beamish, to move amendment 336 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 336. The new planning bill presents a logical opportunity to simplify, in my view, the processes on mineral working sites in Scotland, aligning planning with other areas of government policy. My amendments in this group cover mineral working sites and more specifically, peatland extraction sites. Amendment 336, though it looks technical, is, I think, a simple amendment, which adds nature conservation as a recognised afteruse for mineral working sites. Currently, schedule 3, the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 sets out three potential uses for land after being restored following mineral extraction, use for agriculture, forestry or amenity. This list fails to recognise nature conservation as a highly valuable option for former extraction sites. This could be the restoration of peatland habitats, for carbon storage or the enhancement of biodiversity and other ecosystem services. The amendment circulates that where nature conservation is the chosen aftercare use, it must meet the standard set by SNH. For a number of mineral extraction sites, this could be the most appropriate and locally desirable afteruse and is sometimes supported by communities as well and a standard to which developers should be required to adhere to. It could transform a scarred landscape to an important space for communities and nature. Amendment 337 looks to tackle instances where mineral extraction sites are left dormant for a number of years and to rebalance the responsibility to operators rather than planning authorities. Existing legislation, schedule 8, old mineral workings and permissions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 empowers a planning authority to assume that a mineral extraction site has permanently ceased working when it has been dormant for two years and to therefore require the removal of machinery and the restoration of the site. However, the onus is wholly on the planning authorities to monitor whether sites are sitting dormant and for how long. It also does not prevent operators from leaving sites dormant for years, then revisiting operations without input from planning authorities. A 2009 report from DEFRA shows a huge lack of information for most sites and that includes in Scotland more than half the sites listed have unknown status. This amendment would mean that the operator, if the operator had left a site dormant and ceased operations for two years on a continuous basis or more, their planning permission is automatically suspended. Operators would then be required to proactively apply to the planning authority for permission to resume operations. In view of the fact that planning officers are often really up against it in monitoring opencast and peatland dormant sites, there is that perspective as well in terms of cost to local authorities. Members will know how these dormant and unrestored sites are applied to communities and landscapes across Scotland. Oconcours is an example of that. It could put some onus on the operator to keep their permissions up to date and better enable planning authorities to become aware of dormant sites, which might benefit from some enhanced scrutiny. 338, the next amendments, that and 339 look at bettering the processes surrounding the protection of peatlands. I note that I saw in the press this morning that there is a move to have the flow country designated as a world heritage site, a UNESCO site such as New Lanarkis and other places like the Grand Canyon, so it shows its importance for tourism. I just make that point as well. Around 0.5 million cubic metres of peat are still being extracted annually in Scotland, removing a carbon store that takes thousands of years to form, as we know, resulting in the loss of almost all biodiversity value on the site and changes to hydrology that can have a negative effect on flood management. With increasing global recognition of the need for carbon reductions from land use activity and to meet our climate change targets, it is clear that action is required to address the numerous old planning permissions for peat extraction. Current permission periods are lengthy and poorly regulated, in my view. With cases of lapse permissions where peat has continued to be extracted for years, post-experies such as Moimos in the Highlands, where peat has been extracted 13 years after the expiry of permissions. Amendment 338 introduces sunset clause for all old peat extraction consent, setting a deadline for companies to reactivate permissions or see them permanently expired. This would mean that all companies with consents on phase one or two lists, which I'm happy to explain but won't go into details unless members wish me to, would need to reactivate the consents in the two-year period after the planning bill receives royal consent. The Environment Act 1995 introduced a requirement for the periodic review of mineral permissions. However, only 15 sites have known to have gone through the review process through the statutory arrangements. Those requirements, I understand, are not enforced. Opportunities for inactive permissions to cease through the process are not being realised and there is no centrally available information of any sites at this stage where planning permission has ceased to have effect. Those old planning permissions also act as a barrier, in my view, to obtaining funding for restoration through mechanisms such as peatland action. A sunset clause would remove long-term uncertainty for the status of carbon in the peat soils and remove the burden on local authorities to instigate the process overcoming issues of lack of enforcement and clear data. Importantly, the amendment stipulates that the restoration and aftercare conditions would still apply. I do not believe that amendment runs the risk of encouraging developers to start production at unwanted peatland sites with old permissions, as it simply requires companies to re-activate consent in order to work at some future date rather than requiring work to be started. Finally, my amendment 339 clarifies that any calculation of compensation for restriction of working rights for peatland extraction should take UK and Scottish Government policy on peat use into account. The Scottish Government supports the UK's targets for retail soil supplies to be peat-free by 2020 and for commercial horticulture to end peat use by 2030. The Scottish Government has also set a target to restore 250,000 hectares of peatland by 2030. While many of those on the committee and indeed on my committee are aware of these issues, it is important to highlight this because this amendment ensures that compensation calculations are based on market assumptions. The Scottish Government has rightly given high priority to the phasing out of peat use, peat extraction in recognition of significant climate change impacts and adverse effects to water, biodiversity and wildlife from damaged peatlands. However, despite the increased understanding of the importance of peatlands and policies to phase out the use of peat in horticulture, with clear target dates, peat extraction in Scotland is, I understand, still being consented with extraction allowed up into the 2040s. Although planning policy has a presumption against new commercial peat extraction permissions, the section 8, sorry, schedule 8 of the existing planning act, allows planning authorities to order the discontinuance of mineral extraction if it is in the interests of their districts. Any such order could trigger a claim for compensation by the holder of the extraction rights, as provided for in schedule 10 of the act. Last year, Ock and Cawth, Moss, was re-granted planning permission despite environmental concerns and approaches from my constituents. Not that that would necessarily make a great deal of difference, but I was aware of that issue then. Midlothian Council's hands were tied by its ability to pay the loss-income compensation. The amendment to finally make the point could give confidence to planning authorities to consider restricting working rights in strategically important areas of peatland restoration, and it would provide more clarity for the scope of possible compensation claims. At this stage, the amendment is a proving amendment. If there is an appetite for the amendment, I recognise that there are some details to be further considered, such as possible definitions of retail and commercial sectors. However, I hope that members can support it in the longer term as it shows the changes in clear public interest in ensuring that peatlands are safeguarded and to provide a realistic basis for compensation claims without undermining human rights principles. I agree that it would be useful for nature conservation to be one of the uses that can be specified in aftercare conditions. However, the proposal that the standard should be determined by Scottish natural heritage rather than by the planning authority does not work nor sit well alongside the standards required for other uses. An aftercare condition is imposed by the planning authority and may require the steps to be taken to be set out in a scheme to be approved by the planning authority. If I was to consider the possibility of not moving the amendment today but looking at that aspect of it and possibly an alteration to reflect the point that the minister has made about SNH and put SNH in possibly a more advisory role, would that make sense? I will come to points at the end. As Ms Beamish is very well aware, I am happy that she continues discussions with me and officials around about some of those matters. I will clarify all of those points at the end. Amendment 336, in effect, provides that what the planning authority may approve is to be determined by SNH and that it elevates the role of SNH to decision maker rather than an adviser. That is why I would not support the aim of including nature conservation in aftercare conditions. I would ask Ms Beamish to withdraw the amendment today. On the other amendments in this group, I recognise that there are particular issues around about peat extraction and the legislation relating to old mineral permissions approved prior to 1982. The policies and context in relation to peat have changed. It seems entirely reasonable to reconsider the circumstances that allow dormant or inactive peat sites to be brought back into operation. However, I cannot support the amendments in their current form, in particular amendments 336 and 337, which are not restricted to peat but cover all types of mineral extraction. That could have a significant impact on other industries including aggregate extraction. Amendment 337 would automatically suspend all minerals' consents if there has been no activity on the site for two years. There are already powers for planning authorities to take action where works have permanently ceased. Those existing powers include procedures, for example, notification requirements and powers to require steps to be taken for environmental protection, which are not provided for in this amendment. Amendment 338 would require all permissions granted. It is really just for clarity. Is it the period of two years that the minister objects to or is he minded to accept a different period, or is he just against imposing any period at all? My problem is around mineral consents. We can have a discussion around timescale, but peat and mineral consents together, which Miss Beamish's amendment does. Amendment 338 would require all the permissions before 1982 for both dormant and active sites to expire two years from the act receiving royal assent. Again, that would apply to all sites and not just those where peat extraction is taking place. Under the requirements for the review of all mineral permissions in schedule 9 of the 1997 act, those sites would have had new conditions imposed in the early 2000s and then require review every 15 years, so most of them should have had reviews quite recently and will have up-to-date conditions in place. I see no reason why those permissions should be automatically revoked. Those amendments do not reflect the operational needs of the quarrying industry and will impact on their ability to ensure that an adequate and steady supply of material is available to meet the needs of the construction industry. That will also make it difficult for local authorities to plan for a 10-year land bank of construction aggregates as required by Scottish planning policy. Even if the proposals were to be restricted to peat sites, I would want to ensure that they are compatible with the various powers already contained in the 1997 act. This is a very complex part of the existing legislation and there are a number of technical problems with the drafting of the amendments that are not easy to resolve. For example, I recognise that amendment 339 seeks to reduce compensation for withdrawing consent for peat extraction relating to the voluntary targets set by the UK Government for ending the use of horticultural peat. Given the strong environmental case, I believe that there could be justification for that. However, some further work would be needed on the definitions and also to make sure that provision on compensation links to any provision on the suspension and expiry of permissions. It does not currently connect properly with amendments 337 and 338. To conclude, convener, I understand the reasoning behind these amendments in relation to peat. I cannot accept the extension to other minerals and the impact that this would have on the construction industry. There are also technical issues with the amendments as they stand. I would be happy to continue working with Ms Beamish to see whether we can bring forward adjusted proposals for stage 3 of the bill, but I would ask her not to press those amendments in the meantime. I have listened carefully to the minister's comments. In terms of 336, I do not intend to press that amendment today. In terms of the relationship between planning authorities and SNH, an important point has been made, which has occurred in relation to other amendments, one of which was mine, in relation to its advisory role. I would not move that today. In terms of 337 and 338, I was aware that both extended beyond peat extraction, and I am very happy to have discussion on that. There are also opencast sites that have been affected by the points made in my amendment, but it may be that it is more appropriate to focus only on peat. Although I am disappointed that the minister has not recognised the importance of the circular economy in relation to the gaining of aggregates, I realise that that is then going to go back into present mineral extraction planning arrangements. I acknowledge that it is complicated, and I will consider firming up those amendments in relation to peat only, because that was the principal reason for those amendments. On 339, I will not move that amendment either today because of the offer of the minister to discuss the very complex issues around compensation, and I am happy to have those meetings. I am withdrawing it. I have moved it already, haven't I, so I have to withdraw it. Claudia Beamish wishes to withdraw her amendment. Does any member present object to this amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 337, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 336. Claudia Beamish to officially move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 338, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 336, Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 339, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 336, Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not moved. I think this is an appropriate time to take a short break. I call amendment 308, in the name of Adam Tomkins, grouped with amendments, as shown in the groupings. Adam Tomkins, to move amendment 308 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. It's good to be back. I move amendment 308 in my name. Part 5 of the bill is concerned with the infrastructure levy, which is what these amendments are concerned with. I think, convener, we're probably all agreed across the political spectrum that we understand the importance of effective infrastructure to effective development, and we also all surely know from our own constituencies or regions, stories indicate illustrations of inadequate infrastructure being a stymie on effective development, and that is plainly not in the national economic interest. We also all know that there is a statutory device to deal with this, the Section 75 orders under the Town and Country Planning Act, but that scheme is narrow and has been narrowed further by the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court in the case from Aberdeenshire, implying no criticism of the UK Supreme Court, but clearly what was happening under the Section 75 scheme was that a number of local authorities, including Aberdeenshire, were seeking to extend the reach of Section 75 orders beyond that, which was lawfully mandated in that act, hence the need at least to think about whether we need to supplement the existing Section 75 orders scheme with a broader infrastructure levy as they now have south of the border in England and Wales. I welcome the fact that the Government is thinking along those lines. I encourage the Government to think a little bit harder and a little bit faster along those lines, and that is what my amendments 308 and 309 are designed to do, convener. They are probing amendments. I do not intend to press them today, but I did want to start this debate on infrastructure levy in order to test the Government's resolve on this issue and to encourage gently the Government to move more quickly and to move with greater further in the direction of understanding the importance of infrastructure to development. As the committee pointed out in its stage 1 report on the planning bill, when the bill was published in December last year, the Government said that no decisions have yet been made on the use of the power contained in Section 27 of the bill to which amendments 308 and 309 relate. We are nearly 11 months on. A year ago, it was the case that no decisions have yet been made on the use of this power, so my first question for the Minister, I hope he will be able to respond to this when he responds in a few moments, is whether any decisions have yet been made on the use of this power and if not, why not? We all know that if there is to be an infrastructure levy in Scotland, something quite clear and precise will have to be said about what the relationship is between that infrastructure levy and the existing section 75 obligations. There is no detail in the bill, there is no detail in the accompanying policy memorandum, there is no detail in any of the documentation that the Government put forward when it published the bill in December is the detail available now. If not, why not? If it is not available now, when will it be available? Can we please have it before stage 3? The committee also noted that the policy memorandum accompanying the bill notes that further work is required to define a model that is practical and meets the objectives set out for the infrastructure levy. I agree with that, but we have had a year. Has further work been undertaken to define a model that is practical and meets the objectives and if that work has been undertaken, can we please see it? If it has not been undertaken, why not? That would indicate that the Government is not really serious about infrastructure levy and that work should be undertaken before stage 3 and shared with us before stage 3. The committee finally noted that a number of the witnesses that the committee heard from in its stage 1 inquiry were what the committee nicely describes as generally lukewarm about the proposals for an infrastructure levy. That is the language of fudge, which is beloved of all politicians seeking consensus, perhaps apt for today. A number of witnesses thought that it might be helpful to have an infrastructure levy, but they had concerns about the lack of clarity in the bill. Again, all of this has been on the record for some months and what these amendments are designed to elicit from the Government, hopefully today, but if it is, for some inexplicable reason, not available today, then at least between now and stage 3 greater clarity about all of these important points of detail, which are required, convener, in the interest of ensuring that our planning system does not allow for the continuation of something that is clearly wrong in the planning system at the moment, which is that the lack of adequate infrastructure is a stymie on effective development. That effective development is needed in Scotland in order to boost the Scottish economy. We clearly need to address this. I repeat that I am glad that the Government is seeking to address it in these gestures towards an infrastructure levy that we have in section 28 and in part 5 of the bill, but I am simply encouraging the Government to go faster and harder and be much more committed to this than it seems to have been as this bill was being put together. Thank you very much. Andy Wightman to speak to amendment 99 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Convener, my amendments here fall into two groups, 99 to 102 and then 183 in one group and 340 and 41. Mr Tomkins referred to our stage 1 report that is an observation that witnesses would generally look warm. I would clarify that our stage 1 report was a unanimous report from the committee. A lot of work was done to try and have a unanimous report in order for it to have greater weight. Obviously, some of the language was a consequence of that. I personally am not persuaded that the provisions in the bill for this infrastructure levy are warranted. Mr Tomkins highlights one of the policy reasons for introducing the regulation-making powers, namely the Supreme Court decision. That in itself raises some quite significant policy issues about who should pay for infrastructure and how it should be planned. We have heard from witnesses, I recall, homes for Scotland. We are very clear that what we need in an infrastructure first approach in the planning system is to get the key stakeholders around the room, Scottish Water, SEPA, Transport Scotland, Planning Authority, whosoever else, in order to be able to better align capital programmes around investment in public infrastructure with development plans. I think that there is a broad agreement that, in principle, that is what we should be trying to do. It is important to note that, when we are talking about infrastructure, we are talking and the bill makes clear the kind of infrastructure that would be supported by levy. We are talking about public infrastructure. The question, then, is who should pay for that. I am very, very clear that that should be paid for by the public purse. I want to see a shift from a planning system and a development system that is substantially driven by private interests. It is essentially a privatised system now, where private interests put forward propositions, put forward sites and drive this system. As a consequence, section 75 came along and we started expecting, and now we are proposing, that further financial provisions will be made by private interests. I reject this. I want to see a shift to a public-led development, and that would include appropriate provision for infrastructure. I want to see the wide adoption of land value uplift mechanisms at the outset in order to be able to support development. Rather than having a back-loaded system of demanding fees from people, that was done up front. The explanatory memorandum, or maybe the financial memorandum, indicates that the infrastructure levy will raise very little money. It is unclear how this will work in discussions recently. We were talking, for example, about the speculation that Edinburgh's population will increase substantially over the next 20 years. That may require the construction or the extension of water supplies in the Scottish borders. If I want to apply for consent to build six flats in Leith, should I pay for or contribute towards the water supplies being constructed in the borders for Edinburgh? Yes, but not through an infrastructure levy. I will be voting to get rid of the provisions in part 5, and those are amendments 99, 100, 100, 102 and 183. I do not believe that the provisions and regulations that give wide scope to ministers to introduce such a power are justified. On the basis that that might not be supported, I have also lodged amendment 340 that makes the levy subject to a super affirmative procedure in Parliament. I have also lodged amendment 341 that introduces a sunset clause, although I thought that I had noted at the time, but I obviously had not fully, that this has already been proposed by the minister in amendment 274 in a rather more succinct and elegant form. I will not be moving amendment 341, but I will be moving amendment 340 regarding the need to have a more fulsome consultation with Parliament over the regulations. Those are regulations that will introduce quite a big shift in policy, and that is why I do not think that we should be having this in the first place, but if we are going to have it, then I think that there needs to be enhanced scrutiny of that in Parliament. Thank you, convener. I move. I am not moving anything. You are not moving anything. Alexander Stewart, to speak to amendment 64 and other amendments in the group, has been a long-planning bill to roll out. Thank you, convener. I am happy to do so. Those are more of a technical amendment. This section permits Scottish ministers to modify sections 29 of the bill so as to change and clarify the meanings of infrastructure in relation to parts of the bill and the schedule. The bill, as introduced, contains two schedules. The amendment clarifies the intention to refer to schedule 1 of the bill in section 30. The amendment inserts the review requirements in relation to infrastructure powers. As the committee noted in its stage 1 report on the bill, it is not good legislative practice for powers to be granted only for them to either lie on the statute books unused or for subsequent Governments to seek to use them many years later, potentially in ways that are not originally envisaged. The amendment induces a clause requiring the Scottish ministers to review the operations that are part of the act relating to infrastructure levies and to lay a report on the conclusions of such review before the Parliament. Such reviews give opportunities for scrutiny of the Government's decisions relating to part of the bill and enhanced accountability. A three-year period in which the review must be carried out will ensure that there is sufficient time for the legislative to be enacted and regulations to be introduced so that Scottish ministers wish to do so while ensuring that matters are kept under review in a timely manner. I would like to remind the committee of how proposals for an infrastructure levy came about. The independent panel raised concerns about the limitations of section 75 planning obligations and said that much could be gained from a well-designed levy that takes into account development viability, and that idea was widely supported. The Scottish Government subsequently commissioned extensive research and discussed the matter fully with stakeholders, and it is fair to say that we have not yet found the perfect solution. However, I remain convinced that the concept of a levy is worth pursuing as it could play a key role in supporting the delivery of future development. One of the things that I would emphasise is that it is a well-designed levy. It has to be a well-designed levy. We have an on-going programme of work on planning and infrastructure with the Scottish Futures Trust, and we have also established an infrastructure delivery group who will be well-placed to help us with that. As I said, we have to do further work. It is practical to do so. I understand that Mr Tomkins and others may want to see us move at speed, but I am more concerned about that well-designed workable levy. We will continue to look at detailed design, but that detailed design partly depends on what happens with the final provisions of the bill. However, we will progress the infrastructure levy as a priority if the committee decides to keep the levy in and we will progress in 2019. The point that Adam Tomkins was making is that he has something in the bill that has not been thoroughly thought through. I think that you have admitted that yourself. What Mr Tomkins was pressing you for was a commitment that more work would be done for stage 3. As I said earlier, we have had a number of amendments, mainly from Opposition members, which have not been properly thought through. I think that that falls into that category. Can you commit today to do further work ahead of stage 3? I have said that we are continuing to work on that with other partners. What I cannot commit to is that that work will be complete before stage 3 of the bill. As I said previously, we all want to see a well-designed and workable levy. We had some initial work done, as people are well aware. I was a bit sceptical about some of that work in the findings and have instigated further work to go on to make sure that, if we move forward with the levy, it is the right thing for all—the right thing for councils, the right thing for the public sector and the right thing for all stakeholders who are involved. I commit to the committee that we will continue to do that work. As that progresses, I am more than happy to speak to the committee about where we are at, but I cannot guarantee that work would be completed before stage 3. There cannot be many members here today who have not heard concerns and questions about the impact of new development on infrastructure provision in their area. We need to give local authorities better tools to ensure that existing new and growing communities have access to the facilities and infrastructure that they need. The public sector cannot pay for that on its own, but contributions from developers need to be fair and should not deter the development that we need. A well-worked levy has the potential to achieve that. Clearly, I do not support Mr Wightman's proposals to remove the levy provisions altogether. Given his strong support for adding other land value capture mechanisms elsewhere in the bill, I am slightly puzzled why he would want to remove the one that is already here. In my view, the affirmative procedure allows this Parliament the appropriate opportunity to scrutinise the regulations, so I do not support amendment 340 in the name of Mr Wightman. I must point out that Mr Wightman's procedures only apply to the first regulations under section 27. They would not affect any subsequent regulations under that section. I have taken account of the concern of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to ensure that there should be proper consultation. Amendment 277 requires ministers to consult local authorities and others before making regulations. That consultation will be open and transparent, and the Parliament will have access to all of the published responses, as well as the analysis of responses. On the basis of that evidence, and whatever other evidence-gathering members may choose to do, it will then be up to the Parliament to decide whether to approve the regulations or not. I will take Mr Wightman, convener. The minister mentioned that the public sector cannot pay for this. Two points. Does the minister accept that capital budgets of public sector infrastructure providers on roads and drainage and sewerage and education and health should be aligned with development plans as much as possible? Does he agree with that general proposition? Secondly, does he agree that the majority of development that comes forward does not require a levy to be introduced because the existing section 75 provides adequate provisions for raising the sums of money for infrastructure that is directly related to that particular development? Mr Wightman has heard me speaking in a number of occasions, saying that, in my opinion, local authorities should do more to align capital budgets with their local development plan. I was a strong believer of that when I was on a local authority myself. I think that, when development plans are being formulated, cognizant should be taken of what infrastructure is required in that area to ensure that that development could go forward. However, I reiterate the point that I do not think that the public person can pay for all new infrastructure to deal with all new developments. Unlike Mr Wightman's proposal, the consultation requirement created by amendment 277 will apply to all infrastructure levy regulations, not just the first set. I hope that members will support that. I recognise that the committee has concerns that the power to establish an infrastructure levy may remain in legislation but will never be implemented. We have a range of measures seeking to address that issue. I do not think that Mr Tomkins' proposal that regulations should be laid within a year of royalism is reasonable. I am pleased that he says that he is not going to move that today. I would rather that we had the time to ensure that we develop that preferred model and undertake proper, comprehensive consultation. If the committee wants us to get the levy right, that is the right thing to do. I also do not believe that amendment 65 in the name of Mr Stewart is particularly helpful as it requires ministers to review the operation of part 5 of the bill within three years of royal assent. It seems to me that if ministers are taking forward regulations within that time, there will be evidence of research, consultation and progress. If not, there will be little to review. In my view, that adds unnecessary procedure and would take resources away from possibly working on the levy. My amendments 274 and 290 will mean that the power to establish a levy will lapse if it is not used within 10 years of royal assent. We need to allow a reasonable time for the detailed design and consultation that is needed and to introduce the levy in an orderly way. I can understand if the committee feels 10 years is perhaps a touch generous, and I would be happy to negotiate a final date to be put forward at stage 3. I will take an intervention from Mr Stewart, convener. I am pleased to hear the minister say that he is open to discussions, because my gut feeling is 10 years is too long. We will support the amendment however, but I do think that it needs amending for stage 3. I am not sure what the right figure is, maybe five, but we can discuss that. I am sure that we can negotiate at that point. I am open to all of that. As I said, I do think that maybe 10 years is a touch generous. Mr Wightman takes a different approach with his amendment 341 in seeking to provide that the levy regulations themselves would fall after 10 years unless renewed. I assume that it is intended to require renewal every 10 years, but because of the way the amendment is drafted, it would only seem to require one renewal. In any case, I do not believe that it is necessary to make renewal of the regulations of statutory requirement. If the regulations are working well and if the levy is based on a formula that automatically moves with the economic situation, for example, linked to development value, there would be no need to review them. If there are problems or the formula needs to be updated, I am sure that the Government of the Day would do so, so I do not support amendment 341. I would ask the committee to support amendments 274, 290 and 277 in my name and not to support the other amendments in this group. I am committed to establishing a well-designed levy, and I also commit to updating the committee as we move forward with this. Adam Tomkins to wind up. I think that this has been a debate that is well worth having. I do not agree with everything that Mr Whiteman said, but I do agree with him that the issue on the table here is who should pay for infrastructure. I do not agree with him that we should expect all of Scottish infrastructure to be paid for exclusively out of the public purse. I agree with the Minister that we need to have a hybrid model. We indeed do have a hybrid model, where there is a mix of public and private capital investment in the nation's infrastructure. It seems to me that that is appropriate. It also seems to me that it is the only realistic way of going forward. Imagining that the entirety of our infrastructure can be paid for by public corporations is as unrealistic, it seems to me as imagining that it can all be paid for by the taxpayer. We need a mix of public and private partnership in this. The issue is that the current mix is not working well enough to accelerate or even to facilitate the kind of development that we need right across Scotland in rural and urban communities because of the limited nature of section 75 orders. The issue needs to be looked at fresh. That was the view of the independent panel, as the Minister pointed out. It is the view of the Scottish Government. It is the view that I support. Mr Whiteman is right that it is a fundamental question of policy here about what the relationship is and should be between the contributions that we should legitimately expect from the public and the private purses in terms of infrastructure and development. I completely agree with the Minister that the infrastructure levy must be well designed. Minister, with respect you have had years to design it well. The current review of planning commenced in April 2015, that is three and a half years ago. The review of the independent panel was published in May 2016, that is two and a half years ago. This bill was published 11 and a half months ago, nearly a full year ago. In your contributions with respect, you are unable to point to a single concrete development that has happened in the intervening 11 and a half months in terms of taking this policy forward. This is incredibly disappointing. My amendments are designed to accelerate, not decelerate, your thinking here. Of course the infrastructure levy needs to be well designed, but years have already elapsed. I will in a minute, Minister. Years have already elapsed to enable you and your officials, working alongside the infrastructure delivery group and others, I am sure, in consultation with stakeholders, in consultation with this committee to design it well. With respect, you have not given me confidence that there will be significant further progress between now and stage 3. That is disappointing, but I will let you back in. Thank you, convener. Mr Tomkins will be aware that we carried out a number of works in terms of research in order to get this right. As I said in the stage 1 debate, I was not happy with what we got back, and that is why we have put in place what we have done. Beyond that, in order to progress certain aspects of the bill, we need to see what will come out of the bill in order to get it absolutely right. I am committed, as I said, to getting it right, but I do not promise the committee speed, because I think that in order to get it absolutely right, we need to have all stakeholders on board and take cognisance of all views. The last thing that any of us would want would be to implement an infrastructure levy that has happened in certain other places, which has not worked to the benefit of communities or for economic development. Indeed, minister, I do not want a poor infrastructure and ill thought through infrastructure levy to be in place in Scotland any more than you do, but equally, I do not want this all to be pushed into a, this is all a bit too difficult box, and for excuse after excuse to be piled on justification of justification for doing nothing, because the current system is not working. We need to address that. This bill is an ideal, is the ideal vehicle for addressing that. These provisions do not go far enough to address that in one second, Mr Weyman. These provisions do not go far enough in my judgment to address that, and I would encourage you again, with your officials and with your consultees, to accelerate the work that I know that you are doing, which I support you in your endeavours, so that Parliament can at least be better informed when we revisit this bill at stage 3, even if you have not yet found what you have described as the perfect solution. Let us not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. This is a concept that is worth pursuing, and it is worth pursuing aggressively, and it is worth pursuing at greater speed, I would respectfully suggest, and has hitherto been evident to let Mr Weyman back in. Mr Tomkins mentioned earlier about the balance between the private and the public sector. He will be aware, of course, that public sector expenditures derived from a very, very wide basket of taxes. Does he not appreciate that, for an infrastructure levy that may, as an example, be used to pay for a very large investment in expanding the public water supply for the city of Edinburgh, that it is inequitable for those who are ultimately paying for new development, which in the case of houses will be home buyers, they will effectively be paying this levy, but all the existing residents of Edinburgh who will benefit from an upgraded water supply, for example, will not be paying anything towards that, and that is fundamentally inequitous. I do not think that there is a fundamental unfairness there, but I do think that Mr Weyman puts his finger on the issue, which is that we need to have an honest and robust conversation about the appropriate balance between public investment and private investment in terms of delivering the infrastructure that Scotland needs to drive forward the development that we all know that the economy needs. That is the point. I am seeking to agree with Mr Weyman rather than to disagree, but we can make it into an argument if that is what he would prefer. Convener, I think that enough has been said about these amendments, certainly enough has been said about these amendments by me, so I am happy to wind up at this point. Can you tell us if you are pressing or withdrawing amendment 308? Withdraw. Adam Tomkins wishes to withdraw his amendment 308. Does any member present object to his amendment being withdrawn? Thank you. The amendment is therefore withdrawn. I call amendment 309 in the name of Adam Tomkins, already debated with amendment 308. Adam Tomkins to move or not move? Not to move. I call amendment 25 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Graham Simpson to move amendment 25 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I think I might be right in saying that this is the final group of amendments that we are dealing with. I will not speak for very long, certainly not as long as the minister will probably speak for, but we will all be relieved that it is the final group. I will be speaking to just my three amendments, such as 25, 26 and 27. The committee's stage 1 report stated, quote, The infrastructure levy, as proposed, will not be a game changer that will fundamentally alter and remove blockages from the system. We agreed that if it introduced quotes, it will likely be more effective in some circumstances and in some places than others. This is because of differences in the volume and nature of development and the potential impact of the infrastructure levy on the financial viability of developments. We, as a committee, were deeply concerned about the powers in the bill that enable ministers to collect and redistribute all the levy funds to councils as they wish. This power seems counter to the Scottish Government's intention as set out in the policy memorandum for the levy to be quotes, both collected and spent locally, with the potential for authorities to pool resources for joint funding of regional level projects. The committee's report stated that we support the principle that money raised locally should be spent locally, and that is the intention behind the amendments 25, 26 and 27. The bill has introduced, provided the Government with the ability to require councils to transfer to ministers some or all of their levy income and these monies to be distributed among councils. For me, it was an example of the centralisation that the minister is in denial about. This undermining of local democracy is, in my view, unacceptable. We support the principle that money raised locally should be spent locally. So, if I can just comment on amendment 25, this inserts the words that the levy should be set by a local authority. Everything after that in the bill remains, and that seems to me to be the right approach. 26 inserts one word, local, so that it ensures local infrastructure is funded by the levy, and 27 removes a paragraph where ministers can collect the cash. So, it achieves the three things. The levy should be set locally, collected locally, spent locally, and that, in my mind, is the right approach. We will vote to retain the levy at this stage. I am disappointed in the minister's comments previously. We will, I guess, save it as we save local place plans, but it needs a lot more work for stage three, a lot more work, minister. I think that, hopefully, my amendments are a step in the right direction, just a step, but it is what this committee asked for, and it is the right way to go. Claudia Beamish, do you speak to amendment 342 and other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I intend to speak to my own amendments. Perhaps members will be pleased to hear this being the last section. I do note what the minister has said about the commitment to, in his remarks on the previous group, to a well-designed levy and a workable levy. I do, though, have concerns about the speed at which things are developing. I do hope that the minister might be able to bring something back at stage three. I intend to highlight those amendments anyway, and we will see where we go with it. I am going to speak to amendments 342, 343 and 344, together, as they are interconnected. Those amendments are to expand the potential recipients of the bill's proposed infrastructure levy to include national park authorities. Section 1 of the 1997 act stipulates that all planning authorities are local authorities, but national park authorities are unique, as they are not local authorities, as we know, but can be planning authorities under certain circumstances, as outlined in section 26 of the 1997 act, as does section 2 of the National Parks Scotland Act 2000. Based on the current text, the levy would not be payable to national park authorities. By switching local, as the word in the text of my amendment 2, planning authorities, and with the amendment 344, which clarifies the fact that national park authorities are to be considered as planning authorities, this problem is resolved, although these things are never as simple as they seem. I believe that the terminology is consistent with other parts of the bill, and it is right to make the language more inclusive. National parks bring huge benefits through sustainable land use and sustainable development and focus on conserving our natural environment and our cultural heritage. The infrastructure levy would, in my view, be a welcome boost to funding to this further important work. Finally, my amendment 345 adds nature conservation management measures to the existing interpretation of infrastructure as found in section 29. Members will be aware that this section currently includes a list of matters such as communications, flood defence systems, supply of water and energy, and importantly educational and medical facilities. I will not go through and rehearse the whole list because members know them better than I do, but it does not make reference to green infrastructure needs. Nature conservation management measures are an important addition here in order to allow contributions to be used for strategic habitat mitigation and enhancement to biodiversity. The amendment is drafted quite simply with the intention that it could then encompass green infrastructure, but also, and I quote from the amendment, access management measures for biodiversity. This can include a variety of measures intended to prevent minimised disturbance or damage to wildlife and habitats, and in my view this could help address the residual and cumulative effects of development and therefore might also possibly help to facilitate further development in some areas. This could help public bodies to meet the biodiversity duties, and we will all be aware that although Scotland is certainly the only country, dare I say, in Europe still, which has these issues in terms of meeting international targets, that there are strains on local authorities and some biodiversity officers are no longer in place and there are issues of assessment here. I think the bill would better reflect those strategic environmental assessment, which specifically refers to the multiple benefits of green infrastructure. So, as Scotland's planning policy recognises in paragraph 219, and I quote, green infrastructure and improved access to open space can help build stronger, healthier communities, it is an essential part of our long-term environmental performance and climate resilience, improving the quality of our places and spaces through integrated green infrastructure networks can also encourage investment and development. The two, of course, are not mutually exclusive. I recognise at this stage that members and also the Minister will likely feel that the wording is too broad, and I've also noted in my remarks on the previous amendment that the Minister may not feel that there is the speed to introduce the levy at stage 3. However, I hope that members will feel that they can support the principle of the amendment at this stage, and if required, I would be happy to work with members and the Minister dependent on his comments to agree a consistent definition for stage 3. Thank you. Thank you very much. Minister, speak to amendment 270 and other amendments in the group. I have no difficulty with the principle behind Mr Simpson's amendments 25, 26 and 27 to ensure that key decisions on the levy are controlled by local authorities, whilst it would be useful to have an approach that is consistent across the country. We have already included provisions in schedule 1 that would allow for some local flexibility. I'm happy to support the principle behind amendment 25, which would give greater local flexibility in setting the levy rate. That being said, I have some concerns about implementation. One of the aims of the levy is to improve certainty and to address inconsistent and unpredictable practice relating to planning obligations. We would not want to end up with a complex system of different levies across Scotland. It could also be a significant burden for local authorities if they each have to set up their levy individually. There may be a scope to establish a clear framework for local authorities to work within through regulations and guidance. I would be happy to discuss this further with Graham Simpson with a view to making more considered amendments at stage 3. For today, though, I cannot support amendment 25 because it does not work technically. It is paragraphs 5 and 6 of schedule 1 that need to be amended to achieve what Mr Simpson is trying to achieve, not section 27. To ensure that there can be no doubt that this is a local levy and not a means of supplementing national infrastructure programmes, I am happy to support amendment 27 from Mr Simpson, so it is clear that the income cannot be aggregated and redistributed to ministers. I would also ask the committee to accept amendments 270, 271, 272 and 273, in my name, which are consequential to amendment 27. Getting rid of the aggregating powers surely undermines one of the reasons why the infrastructure levied provisions are being brought in. I go back to my example about the water supply from Edinburgh as delivered substantially from facilities in Midlothian and the Scottish Borders. If we do not have that aggregate levy power, then the infrastructure levy can do nothing in principle to deliver better water infrastructure for the city of Edinburgh. What I have said previously and committee members will have heard me on a number of occasions now, local authorities can work together to bring moneys together to work on projects that have regional significance, so I do not see that as a problem. The committee certainly had a problem with ministers taking the resource and then aggregating it out. I am happy to follow the committee's line on that, but that does not stop co-operation between authorities to aggregate resources to deal with larger infrastructure projects. I do not support amendment 26 from Mr Simpson. I want to make clear that the infrastructure levy is to be used by local authorities to support infrastructure projects that benefit their areas. Amendment 27, which I am supporting, will mean that moneys raised by the levy will always be in the hands of the local authority for the area where the money is raised for them to use as they see fit within their powers. Amendment 26 would add a further unnecessary test of localism on top of that. That would give rise to questions as to whether a project is or is not local for those purposes. It is not desirable to introduce additional hurdle. The example that Mr Whiteman gave is one of the areas that could be affected by that amendment if it were passed. Our research has pointed to the importance of strategic projects. Those projects, which are larger and more complex than local or site-specific projects supported by the existing section 75 funding mechanism and which are not national projects funded by national infrastructure programmes, may well be useful for local authorities to join forces to support regionally important projects. Amendment 26 could limit its ability to do that. I would ask Mr Simpson not to move it. Turning to amendments 343 to 345 in the name of Ms Beamish, the aim for the infrastructure levy is to fund key enabling infrastructure to allow development to come forward. I am concerned that widening the scope of levy funds to other types of projects while, worthwhile on their own right, would divert key funds away from the primary purpose. Through our consultations, those who would be liable to pay the levy have been very clear that they would not want the definition widened too far. I do not believe that nature conservation measures would be an acceptable use of levy funds as it would not help to address infrastructure capacity issues that are acting as a barrier to development. Of course, any environmental impact of a development has to be considered as part of the planning application and mitigation measures are put in place where necessary. On this basis, I would ask the committee not to support this amendment. On amendments 342 to 344, I will take Ms Beamish. It is just a clarification on the previous numbers, Minister. You said it was 345 in my name, and I am not sure that that is correct. 343 to 345, I said it at the beginning there. Sorry, I will get a few more. Okay. Sorry. Right. Sorry, are you now going to speak about 345? I am going to talk about the others now. I know we are getting to the end. Amendments 342 to 344, which seek to give national park authorities the ability to receive and spend levy funds, raise some significant practical issues. National parks, of course, are situated across local authority areas, and so that would mean that there would be two authorities operating the levy in relation to any development within a national park. Local authorities have wider responsibilities for infrastructure provision, and I consider that they are best placed to manage the infrastructure levy, although, of course, they should work with their partners, including the national park authorities, to consider how the funds should be spent. Therefore, I do not support amendments 342 to 344, and I would ask Ms Beamish not to press them. Thank you, convener. Oh, I have finished. Yeah, sorry. Oh, I was speaking. Sorry. Sorry. It is a clarification before you stop. If you are happy, convener, I am happy to take Ms Beamish. The clarification being? Well, actually, it is not a clarification. It is a point. It is a very quick point. You did say earlier, thank you for taking this very brief intervention. You did say earlier in relation to the levy that you rejected a different amendment because it prevented local authorities working on a regional basis. So I am puzzled as to why, when national parks are so important and they are formed as a collective, why you would not see this as a positive amendment. The minister has already made his case. Convener, if I can very briefly say that I am happy with the local authorities, within the national park, to work together on the infrastructure levy and to consult with the national park, but I do not agree with Ms Beamish's amendment, which gives the ability for the national parks to receive and spend the levy funds. I think that is a matter for the local authorities who are dealing with these large infrastructure projects. Okay. Thank you. Graham Simpson to wind up and press up the draw. Well, thanks, convener. I will be quick, although the committee would like me to be quick. I will just come back on the minister. I was just checking the wording of my own amendments, just so we are absolutely clear. So amendment 25 would mean that the bill would read that the Scottish ministers may, by regulations, establish and make provision about an infrastructure levy to be set by a local authority. Amendment 27. Can I have an intervention? Yes, certainly, yes. My difficulty in terms of 25, and I would reiterate this, is that it does not work technically. It is paragraphs 5 and 6 of schedule 1 that need to be amended to achieve what Mr Simpson is trying to achieve and not section 27. Right, okay. I hear that. So amendment 26 would mean there's a paragraph which would now read, the income, this is in relation to the levy, the income from which is used by local authorities to fund or contribute towards funding local infrastructure projects. So I will be pressing that. In fact, I'm going to be pressing all three, and I'll wind it up there. Okay, thank you very much. Right, so you are pressing your amendment 25 now? I am. Thank you. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 25? Two, those opposed to amendment 25? Five. Amendment 25 is not agreed to. I call amendment 342 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 25. Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Not move, convener. Thank you. I call amendment 343 in the name of Claudia Beamish already debated with amendment 25. Claudia to move or not move? Not move, convener. Thank you. I call amendment 26 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 25. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Rodd 5—Gloria Beamish to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 99 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 308. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 99? Yes. Two. Those opposed? Yes. Five. Amendment 99 is not agreed to. I call amendment 278 in the name of the move. The minister already debated with amendment 25. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 270 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. For 270 is agreed to. I call amendment 271 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 25. Minister to move formally. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 271 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 271 is agreed to. I call amendment 27 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 25. Graeme Simpson, y mewn Gwneithiaeth cyfnod drwy iawn? Y cwestiwn wrth gweithio youw otrok diwrnod lighter rockets no 272 o fillion wedi y Jarteg stylem aion 2017 o yn rhaid ynини. Maements 272 o bod yn cyfor wedi sprproses hyn nhw sydd bynnag ymdasги wedi Altamau 25. Maements 272 o'r cyfnod drw原因 yn ei ddefnyddio youwlogo diwrnod lighter rockets no 272 o'i�? Amendment 272 agriad. I call amendment 183 in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 308. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 183 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 183, 2, those opposed, 5. Amendment 183 is not agreed to. I call amendment 273 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 25. The question is that amendment 273 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 273 is agreed to. I call amendment 100 in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 308. Andy Wightman, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour of amendment 102, those opposed, 5. Amendment 100 is not agreed to. I call amendment 345 in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 25. Claudia Beamish, to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 101 in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 308. Andy Wightman, to move or not move?