I welcome everyone to the 25th meeting of the local government and communities committee in 2018. I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones and as meeting papers are provided in digit format, tablets may be used by members during the meeting. No apologies have been received. For this item, the committee is invited to consider whether to take consideration of its work program at agenda item 4 in private and are we all agreed. Agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation and the committee will consider negative instrument 196 as listed on the agenda. The instrument is laid under the negative procedure which means that its provisions will come into force unless the parliament votes on motions to annul it. No motions to annul have been laid. The delegated power and law reform committee has not drawn the instrument to the parliament's attention on any of its supporting grounds. Do members of any committee comment on the instrument? In that case, I invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument and are we agreed. The next item of business will suspend for a minute to allow the minister and officials to come to the table. This is day 2 of stage 2 of the planning bill and I welcome the minister for local government and housing, Kevin Stewart, and he is accompanying officials to today's meeting. A number of MPs who are not committee members but have lodged amendments to the bill will again also be in attendance today and are very welcome. I will go straight on to the call and amendment 171, the name of Andy Wightman, in a group on its own. Andy Wightman to move and speak to amendment 171. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 171 in my name. In evidence to the local government committee on 23 May this year, Julie Proctor from Greenpeace Scotland said that, at one point, local authorities were required to produce open place strategies, so many local authorities have them, but they are coming up for renewal at the moment. The wording is that they should have them, so there is something to be done there with the committee scrutiny of the planning Scotland bill to ensure that local authorities have an open space strategy. It is not just about parks, it is about green network strategy that takes a green infrastructure perspective. The Scottish planning advice note 65 deals with planning in open space and was published in 2008. Over a decade ago, it is a good document, and it will, in accordance with the provisions of the bill, be incorporated into the national planning framework and become part of the development plan. Key elements in plan 65 are a strategic vision and framework, an audit of open space, an assessment of current and future requirements and a strategic statement. Currently only nine out of Scotland's local authorities have an open space strategy that is current of the remaining 2312 or reviewing or revising strategies, and most of the remaining 11 have some sort of alternative in place, including commitments in the local development plan. The element of Scottish planning policy is now well established, understood and implemented. My amendment builds on the good work undertaken today across Scotland by making such open space strategies a statutory requirement for all planning authorities, with the exception of national park authorities—in other words, just for all of Scotland's 32 local authorities. This is a modest reform designed to elevate current best practice in Scottish planning policy to the level of a statutory requirement so that the good work that has been carried out to date continues. The Government recognises the value of open space and that being able to access high-quality green space can improve people's health, wellbeing and confidence. Indeed, we introduced a national indicator on improving access to local green space in 2016. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to impose duties and authorities about preparing open space strategies. The most recent State of Scotland's green space report confirms that all councils have some recognised form of spatial plan relating to green space and open space. That is without it being a statutory duty on local authorities. Can I move on a wee bit and I'll take Mr Simpson in, if that's okay with you, convener? In fact, just take Mr Simpson in now. I appreciate that, thanks very much. You heard Andy Wightman say that most Scottish councils do not have an up-to-date green space plan. Do you not think that this amendment would help to rectify that? As I've just said, all councils have some recognised form of spatial plan relating to green space and open space. If I can move back, the audit that would be required by this amendment is very detailed and would place a financial burden on authorities. The Scottish Government works with local authorities in various ways to achieve our shared priorities. I do not believe that statutory duties are always the most appropriate mechanism. Getting into the detail of the wording of amendment 171, I have a number of concerns. It defines the terms open space, green networks and green infrastructure. The Scottish Government has already established definitions for those in Scottish planning policy, which was subject to extensive consultation. The amendment defines some of those terms differently. It is not clear why they are different or whether the changes were subject to a similar level of engagement. Keeping such definitions in national policy rather than in legislation allows them to evolve to reflect emerging policy. For example, the national indicator on access to local green space now also looks at blue space, such as beaches and walkways beside rivers or canals. That may be an aspect that we would look to incorporate when we review national planning policy as other types of outdoor spaces that people can enjoy. My view is that open space should be an integral part of a development plan spatial strategy and that authorities should choose whether and when a separate document is needed. I would ask the committee to reject the amendment. The minister is correct that all authorities have some sort of open space plan in its loosest sense and many of those are integrated into the local development plan. However, I agree with the minister that we should not be imposing statutory duties that are strictly not required. I take the view that, given the good work that has been done to date, it should not be overly onerous on planning authorities to prepare an open space strategy. I take the minister's remarks in regard to language, particularly in terms of definitions, and I am very happy to consider further amendments at stage 3 that perhaps would simplify the statutory requirement here and provide more flexibility. If I could just finish that point, I am happy to consider an amendment that would incorporate such a duty in tandem with guidance that would allow that duty to be implemented in a more flexible way. Mr Wightman said that he does not believe that adding that in would be overly onerous on local authorities. What consultation is Mr Wightman undertaking with local authorities to see exactly how onerous they think that that would be? I have had informal discussions with a couple of local authorities. I have asked no questions about the degree of onerousness that that would incorporate. I have had no kickback on that. I would say that the views that I have had were fairly neutral on whether that should be a statutory duty or not. As I said in my early remarks, I am very happy to consider amending that further at stage 3 in discussions with the minister to make sure that that is not an overly onerous duty. However, the important thing that it does is that, although local authorities are doing some good work just now, there is no guarantee that that will continue. Placing that on the face of the bill ensures that all planning authorities will have something that we can call an open space strategy. The question, therefore, is that amendment 171 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Yes. Those who are in favour, raise their hands. Those opposed? Those who are in favour. Thank you. The amendments passed. I call amendment 188 in the name of Alexander Stewart, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Alexander Stewart to move amendment 188 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I am happy to move amendment 188. As we are aware, the challenges facing demographics in Scotland and our ageing population are significant. We are aware that the population of our older individuals will increase dramatically during the time between 2012 and 2038. Some projections have indicated that we have 59 per cent increase in the over 65s. Those factors underline the need to invest in housing for older people. To address that, I believe that investment in housing will save resources that would otherwise have been spent on health and social care. To tackle that, it also looks at loneliness isolation, which is becoming even more profound in our ageing population. Addressing those issues will require strategic action at the national level through the national planning framework and local development plan and local place plans. I am there for calling on the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Government and members of the committee to accept the amendment that I have put forward addressing the need for older people. I believe that the amendment will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to lay a report before the Scottish Parliament every two years and the housing need for older people and the progress that we have made towards meeting those needs. I put forward that in my name, convener. Thank you very much, Mr Short. Kenneth Gibson, to move amendment 188A and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendments are simply to add the words and disabled people throughout this amendment, where older people are previously mentioned. Supportive of amendment 188, which I believe is proportionate, given the rising numbers of older people and people with disabilities in our society and their specific needs. It is also important that the amendment is in primary legislation to ensure that older people and disabled people are fully considered. I believe that those amendments and amendment 188A are consistent with what the committee agreed with regard to the national planning framework. I understand where those amendments are coming from, and I have some sympathy, particularly focusing on the issues of the interests of disabled people. I speak as a former deputy convener of the cross-party group on disability. However, looking at the issue from the perspective of planning law, presumably, if you were in some other group, you could argue that you had particular needs that deserved particular treatment singled out in the legislation. For example, what about the position of veterans, for example, in terms of societal changes? What about the position of lone parents who need particular accommodation if they have custody residence orders with regard to their children? What about the position of societal changes of fathers who do not have residence, vis-a-vis their children but have contact rights and need for appropriate accommodation in order to be able to get, for example, overnight access? Many fathers cannot get that because they do not have suitable accommodation. If you look across the piece, there are many different kinds of needs of people vis-a-vis the planning system and the housing need. I would have thought that surely the expectation of everybody is that they feel that they should be treated equally under planning law, so I would have concerns about those amendments. As I said last week in relation to similar amendments, the support for the housing needs of older and disabled people is a laudable aim. I have no objection whatsoever to reporting on progress where the requirements are flexible and would provide robust, meaningful and actionable evidence. As I already explained, the Scottish Government already maintains an online action programme for national planning framework 3, which is updated at least once a year. However, I have also made it clear that I do not believe that it is proportionate to single out housing for older people and disabled people in this way in primary legislation, separate from other housing needs, as Ms Ewing has mentioned. The planning system on its own cannot ensure that particular types of housing are delivered. Housing services and market conditions also have a significant part to play to name but 2. The planning system certainly cannot ensure that houses are adapted for older people or disabled people, since adaptations often do not require planning permission. Indeed, planning for funding and implementing adaptations is within the remit of health and social care partnerships, working with housing authorities and not planning authorities. That is a critical point, and I would ask the committee to bear in mind the scope of planning and its limitations. Whilst planning can estimate future needs for particular types of homes, it cannot assess the specific needs of individuals or households and decide on the type of housing required to meet their needs or ensure that properties are allocated to those who will need it. Local housing strategies are much better placed to play a direct influencing role in that regard. As well as going beyond the scope of planning, the report suggested in amendment 188 would be an onerous task to prepare, and it is not clear what it would achieve. It would probably be possible to compile a report detailing new build completions specifically for older people or, for example, those houses that are wheelchair accessible. However, it would not be possible to fully evaluate how well those homes are meeting the needs of their occupants in a meaningful way at a national level. We cannot simply draw from local information either. Based on research that we have recently undertaken, I have concerns about how locally derived information from housing land audits could be aggregated into a robust, evidence-based document at a national level. The frequency of reporting that would be required is also disproportionate given that, on average, homes take around 18 months from planning to completion. I appreciate that those amendments are very well-intentioned, but they are fraught with technical difficulty and complexity, and they go beyond the scope of the planning system. In any case, rather than creating an unwieldy and resource-intensive monitoring system, I believe that time would be better used in supporting the delivery of housing on the ground. I would ask Mr Stewart not to press amendment 188 and for Mr Gibson not to move amendments 188A to L. Alexander Stewart, to my wind-up amendment 188. I note the minister's comments, but I am surprised. I am a little distressed that you have gone into such detail, minister, indicating that you do not believe that this is appropriate or that you feel that this is going to be a burden. We should be supporting—we should be supporting. I have not said that doing this kind of work is not appropriate. It just does not fit in with planning, and I believe that what is asked for in the amendment is disproportionate. As I said, I note the minister's comments, but I do not believe that they are disproportionate. It is important that we indicate that we do support our growing ageing population. The areas that the minister has covered indicate that there would be a requirement to ensure that every care plan, every individual who has a package that is being put in understands their carers, their organisations, and supports them and understands the needs that they require in housing. That is taken in part of their care package. I do not believe that it would be onerous to ensure that we would have some kind of review and some kind of statutory indication as to what would take place and could take place. It is vitally important that we do think long and hard about what we are trying to achieve here. I am disappointed, convener, that the minister has indicated. Are you happy to take an intervention? Yes. I do not disagree with Mr Stewart on many of the points that he is making in terms of getting it right for people across the country in terms of housing and care needs. My difficulty in all of that is where it fits in with the planning system. As I have outlined, I think that what Mr Stewart is putting forward is very onerous and will add to the burden of not only authorities but also officials here. I think that what he is trying to achieve, as I have said, is laudable. I think that that would be much better done in terms of housing and care services rather than through planning legislation. As I say, convener, the minister makes points, and I am still quite adamant that I believe that they should be. I thank Mr Stewart for taking an intervention. The point that he is making is very well made, and Kenneth Gibson made the same point. This is not a disproportionate set of amendments. Surely, we should be planning for older people, and that is surely part of the planning system. Perhaps Mr Stewart would agree with that. I would completely concur with that that we should be planning, because the situations that we find ourselves in some parts of the country where it has obviously not worked well and there is now crisis in a number of situations in local authorities and regions of Scotland, because that has not been the case. I think that by giving this opportunity, by actually taking this forward, it would give us the chance to plan and give us the opportunity to secure residences for individuals who are of an older nature and who have disabilities. It is only right and proper that we should attempt to do that on their behalf. We have the opportunity during the planning bill to achieve that. Sorry, I should have intervened on him. Kenneth Gibson will now speak to amendment 188A. I agree with what Alexander Stewart has said. I think that I understand the minister's perspective, but it is not happening as it perhaps should be happening at this time. The whole point of this, and we mentioned it last week, is to have a built-in braces approach to make sure that older people and people with disabilities are considered. I think that there is a difference between one of the groups that Annabelle Ewing mentioned, who do not necessarily need a house to be designed specifically for them because they have a different kind of issue to face. I think that what we are talking about here is houses that for older people and people who are disabled, perhaps dementia friendly houses, houses that are built with adaptations rather than those who have to have adaptations subsequently added to them. I think that this is a fairly measured amendment. Mr Gibson will take an intervention. I thank Mr Gibson for taking the intervention. I think that one of the key things in terms of getting it right for older and disabled people in the future is making changes to local housing strategy guidance, which the Government is embarking on at this moment. I hope to have that report back in December. I understand exactly where folks are coming from in some regards, but this is not a matter for the planning system. The vast bulk of people who are in homes who may develop illness or who age, we know, want to stay in the homes that they are in. That requires adaptation, which, as I have already mentioned, would not be captured—adaptation of existing homes, which would not be captured in all of that. While I can report back in terms of planning aspects of those kinds of homes, what I cannot do is force people into a situation to build those homes, which I think is the intention of some of the things that Mr Stewart and Mr Gibson have gone on about. In that case, I ask you, Kenneth, to press or withdraw. The question is, therefore, that amendment 188A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those who agree, those who are opposed, it is 5-2 in favour of amendment 188A. I call amendments 188B to L in the name of Kenneth Gibson and I invite Kenneth to move these on block. Does any member have objections to a single vote? No, if not, then. The question is, that amendments 188B to 188L be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It is 5-2 in favour of— Okay, sorry, I would raise your hands. And I ask Alexander Stewart to press or withdraw amendment 188. The question is, that amendment 188 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Okay, those who are in favour, those who are opposed. I call amendment 220 in the name of Claudia Beamish in a group of its own. Claudia Beamish to move and speak to amendment 220. Good morning, convener. Good morning, minister and colleagues. Amendment 220 looks to set up a low-carbon infrastructure commission designed to bring much-needed long-term focus for low-carbon infrastructure in the planning system. The function of the commission would be to identify low-carbon infrastructure needs and priorities, to make recommendations on how to address these priorities, to issue climate change and low-carbon energy efficiency guidance to planning authorities that must be regarded, and to make recommendations in the preparation of other plans and reports. Scottish ministers have the flexibility, if this goes forward, to bring forward further provision about governance and membership, and regulations must be brought forward within a year of the act coming into force. I appreciate that this is a complex issue, and I have put it all into one amendment in terms of time, because it is a probing amendment to get the feel from the committee and others and, of course, the minister as to whether it is something that there is an appetite to go forward on. I will just explain a little bit more about it. The commission would also prepare and publish a national infrastructure needs assessment, or NENA, to analyse long-term needs and make recommendations for implementation. This would undergo consultation by persons who are listed in the amendment. Finally, the Scottish ministers must have regard to the NENA when preparing the national performance framework. In my view, there needs to be a more joined-up approach between Scottish Government's climate change ambitions and policies with its capital spending commitments and planning system. High-carbon projects threaten to lock us in to a high-carbon future that is incompatible with our climate change efforts.  My aim with this commission would be that it would take the development of infrastructure out of short-term cycles of government and allow ministers to make informed decisions about the country's future infrastructure requirements in line with our zero-carbon future. Failing to make public investments with this agenda in mind would leave a legacy of infrastructure that would be more expensive to adapt in the future through retrofitting. I note from our eclair committee of recent evidence that, at the moment, only 29 per cent of large infrastructure projects are low-carbon through the assessment of SPICE. The establishment of the commission was a recommendation made by the low-carbon infrastructure task force, so I have not plucked it out of the air. It was also supported by WWF Scotland, who has given me support. Can I finish this little point? It is in line with the Government's existing budget commitment to increase low-carbon infrastructure. A number of parties have similar ideas about setting up various types of infrastructure commissions or bodies, but this is a planning bill. It seems to me that this is not the place for this. It would cost a lot of money, presumably, to set up. I do not know if you have worked out any figures. It may be a good idea, but it looks to me that the planning bill is not the place for it, and you have said earlier that this is a probing amendment. I am guessing from that that you are not intending to move it. We are here to pass or reject amendments. Do you agree that this is not the place for it? I think that the member for his intervention and part of the purpose of stage 2 is to clarify whether this is indeed the place for something and to highlight that there is a serious issue, which in my view there is, in terms of it only being 29 per cent, as I have already highlighted, of infrastructure. In terms of the national planning framework, the infrastructure projects are part of that, as I understand it. I appreciate that there are aspects to it, but if not here, where is the question that I would float in the air for answer? As I say, it is a probing amendment, but a number of respondents highlighted their concern that the draft bill was perhaps not focused enough on low-carbon, and I do believe it to be important. If there is an interest, I ask the minister in the sense following on from Graham Simpson's point as well, which I was going to make. I will just say what I am asking the minister, because I am in the middle of that sentence. I ask the minister to clarify please how it could be enacted if not here in this planning bill, if it is argued that planning is only part of the puzzle. This commission would not replace any regulator, I stress, but would give an independent advice. I have only got a couple of other points, very brief points to make, but I will take your intervention. Oh, thank you. I am grateful to the member. I mean, I do have concerns about cost creating yet another body and costs, and I don't know if the members had the opportunity to consider what the cost would be, because obviously cost money spent on this is less money spent than something else. That's kind of the way of life. But another issue that's not been raised yet is the question of accountability. I mean, where does this sit in terms of the role—let's remember—of local authorities, of the democratically elected local councillors? Where is this sit in terms of that process and the very important issue therefore of accountability? In terms of the cost, if there is an appetite and interest for it in terms of this bill, I would look more carefully into costs, and I haven't looked in any detail into costs at the moment. That's where things are with that. As far as—sorry, can you just remind me? I'm just thinking about the— The issue of accountability, and if we remember the role of the local elected democratically elected councillors here. Yes, there are, of course, democratically elected councillors whose role I highly respect. It would be for ministers, as I said, to set guidance and then for local authorities to take that in the context of their own decision making, to look at low-carbon in a more focused way, I would hope. There's also a broader set of benefits, just lastly, such as energy efficiency and jobs and tackling fuel poverty, and, of course, in other portfolios, savings to the NHS from issues around air quality, which could be improved by more appropriate low-carbon infrastructure as well with active travel routes. I'll end there and I'll be very interested to hear what the minister says and if there are other comments from members. Thank you. Thank you very much, Claudia. Andy. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you to Claudia for bringing this amendment. I've got no disagreement with the policy intention behind it. In fact, I think it's quite a critical task that somebody undertakes and that, for example, a recent commission set up with Scottish Land Commission has been doing valuable work that cuts across electoral cycles and enables a degree of consistency and depth to policy development that will be very, very useful. I think that a body like this and indeed a body that could, as some have suggested in fact, a general infrastructure commission, low-carbon or not, that sorts some of the conundrums around infrastructure that's required for some of the development that we need, is a good idea. However, I do have some concerns because this is a planning bill. It is concerned with the process of planning and reporting, ministerial accountability for the planning system, etc., and I'm not convinced that it's the place to legislate for new organisations. However, I am open to persuasion as to how the functions identified in the amendment can be incorporated in a more appropriate way in this bill, and I'd be happy to speak to the member on an on-going basis around that. However, that would be at a parcher for any planning legislation, back 70 years to 1947, to set up new bodies. Planning legislation is designed to provide the framework of rules and processes around which planning authorities exercise their powers under planning law. It has not been to date a place where we set up new commissions, so I'm not persuaded that this is the correct place, but I'm open to further conversation. Convener, I recognise that infrastructure is a key issue for planning reform. The Scottish Government has been progressing a programme of work to look at this, focusing mainly on improving practice, rather than introducing new statutory duties. The idea of an infrastructure agency or working group was raised by the independent planning review panel in 2016. We considered that carefully, consulted on it and discussed it with stakeholders. I know that there is some support for a new organisation to address infrastructure. Indeed, since then, there have been further requests for new commissions or agencies covering different aspects of infrastructure. However, that will not achieve better alignment of planning with infrastructure. A new body to address infrastructure could add to an already complex landscape of interests. It could be costly and, of course, it would take time to set up. Even a small new public body could cost £1.5 million to £2 million per year. We do not need to create another organisation. Instead, we need to focus on better co-ordination and communication with existing organisations. I am listening carefully to what you are saying. How do you see a more robust assessment of planning development, if not through an independent commission, to make sure that we move in the way of low carbon? As I made the point that we are not having to retrofit very big projects in the future? If we look at last week's session, we agreed Monica Lennon's amendment, which ensures that climate change is fully addressed in the national planning framework. That is a way that this will be dealt with in looking at how we can bring low carbon into play in every aspect of our day-to-day lives. Beyond that, the Parliament will soon be looking at a new climate change bill. I am sure that, as we progress through that, we will be coming up with other innovative ideas. As part of our programme of planning reform, the Scottish Government has already established an infrastructure delivery group, including public and private infrastructure providers. The approach reflects the fact that there are already many organisations with a responsibility for infrastructure delivery. Many opportunities could be missed if we are distracted by the process of setting up a new commission. Instead, I am keen to ensure that the next national planning framework that is aligned with the Scottish Government infrastructure programmes provides a stronger steer on future infrastructure requirements. I made that point to the committee last week, and I know that there is support for improving that alignment. We can achieve much more by doing this than we would if we passed on responsibility for infrastructure to a new, separate body. Our programme for government also commits to a new infrastructure mission. The First Minister has appointed the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity to highlight the importance of the issue. A commission whose advisory functions relate primarily to planning authorities and the development and use of land could cut across wider initiatives. The second part of the amendment introduces a requirement for a national infrastructure needs assessment. Our infrastructure investment plan is the way in which we coordinate infrastructure investment. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity will consider our approach to refreshing the 2015 infrastructure investment plan in due course. I do not think that there is any need for a separate assessment to be undertaken. I have continuously emphasised the importance of planning having a stronger focus on delivery throughout the debates that we have had. There is clearly a need for development plans to be better informed by fuller evidence on infrastructure capacity and requirements. Our research has said that there is a particular need to do this at a regional rather than a national scale. We proposed introducing infrastructure audits at a regional scale in our consultation and intend to develop this further in practice as we move towards the next national planning framework. I had also envisaged that this is a key area for authorities to address in their strategic development reports working with the Scottish Government had the committee agreed with amendment 116. Nevertheless, I still want to see planning work more flexibly and effectively with wider regional economic partnerships, working and with infrastructure providers to strengthen that delivery. By aligning planning at this scale with city and growth deals, there is clearly an opportunity to underpin significant investment with a long-term land use strategy, aware, for example, of the good work on this that is already under way in the Glasgow city region. The amendment is very broadly defined and appears to extend well beyond low-carbon infrastructure. Infrastructure is complex and we must bear in mind that it is delivered by private sector organisations as well as public bodies. Different approaches to needs assessments already exist reflecting the varying programmes and priorities of infrastructure providers. The key is not to duplicate those approaches but to better co-ordinate and align them with development planning. Taking into account all of our on-going work to better align planning with infrastructure investment in Scotland, I do not support amendment 220 and, in particular, its requirement to establish a new national infrastructure commission and would urge Ms Beamish not to press her amendment. Thank you very much, convener. I will be clear from the start that, at this stage, in view of the helpful discussions that have happened, I will not be pressing my amendment today. I am not saying that I will not consider in discussion with others who I have worked with and possibly the minister, although there has not been that offer, because I know that you are not very keen on it at all, but to consider bringing it back, I do not think that Andy Wightman's comment that just because something has not happened before that it cannot happen, that just a precedent, if there has not been a precedent for it, then there was not a precedent for the climate change act in 2009. If we did not have one, we would be in more trouble than we even are, so I do not think that that is an argument for not doing something. I do think that the minister has given reassurance in terms of the better alignment and also in terms of the national planning framework, which obviously it is very important that low carbon is in that to underpin things. In terms of Nina, it looks like Nina is going to now possibly die a death, I am not sure, because the minister has explained how there are a lot of other opportunities for assessment and that the private sector is involved as well. Although I do come back on that one to some degree in that the private sector should still be expected to assess how they will be looking at the infrastructure projects that they are tendering for in terms of low carbon, so I do think that that is important even if there is not an additional layer which this would have bought. I am somewhat reassured and I will not go into any more detail, but there are a number of other points about city deals and different things that are encouraging, but I do think that the joined-up approach is absolutely vital for low carbon, which is why I bought this forward and I am glad that it has been highlighted and discussed. Thank you very much. Claudia Beamley wishes to withdraw her amendment. Does any member present have any objection to the amendment being withdrawn? Thank you. We now move on to call amendment 42 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Section 2 of the bill repeals sections 4 to 14 of the Town Country Planning Scotland Act 1997. Those provisions of the 97 act relate to strategic development plans, and the effect of section 2 of the bill is to do away with strategic development planning in the planning system as it currently stands. My amendment 42 deletes section 2 and therefore has the effect of leaving the current system of strategic development planning in place on altered amendments 45, 46 to 50, or consequential. Convener, we have been undertaking strategic development planning in Scotland for over 70 years, beginning with the Clyde Valley regional plan of 1946. Pioneers of Scottish regional planning, including Patrick Geddes and Ian McHarg, were pioneers in the field. The committee's stage 1 report concluded that the current approach to strategic planning should not be abolished unless a more robust mechanism is provided. At one of the events that was organised by the committee, I think that it was an event in Stirling, where we had quite a large number of interested parties there having workshops and discussions around the future of the planning system. I spoke to a member of Clyde plan, one of the strategic planning authorities in Scotland, who emphasised the importance of a statutory strategic plan that was able, for example, to embed policies in relationship to hydrology in one local authority designed to prevent flooding in another. The key ingredient there is the statutory nature of the plan, because that locks in that kind of cross-authority work that is needed for effective spatial planning. If we do not have effective spatial planning, the temptation is for authority 1 to abandon its policies in hydrology, because they are not policies that really matter very much to it. They are policies that are designed, in this case, to stop flooding or prevent flooding or mitigate flooding in Glasgow, another planning authority. We have had a number of proposals come to the table on how strategic planning could be carried on in the future that build on the bill. I welcome that very much. Indeed, in amendment 116, 116 last week from the minister, it focused on voluntary working and securing regional outcomes through the national planning framework. In my view, strategic planning is best undertaken by strategic planning partners than by central government. I think that national planning is different from strategic planning, and I think that strategic planning needs to be owned by the authorities who are bound by its outcomes. In the debate that we had in stage 1, it was acknowledged and agreed and recognised that there are mixed views on this topic. I have spoken further to interested parties since then. Broadly speaking, there is still that split, but a very large number of organisations are sceptical about losing strategic planning. Rather, we keep it unless we can have robust replacements that are workable in place. I am not convinced that we are at that stage yet. I am still open to persuasion that that could be reached by stage 3. Amendment 85 incorporates the same statement on how a strategic development plan will take account of gender and of the impact on gender that I previously set out in the debate over section 1 on the national planning framework. Again, I welcome Monica Lennon's amendment to reflect my more accurate intentions. Monica Lennon's amendment 185 supports that. It provides the same new evidence report requirements as is provided in section 3.4 of the bill. I also support amendment 2 to 1, convener. I move amendment 42, in my name. I just point out that, if amendment 48 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 155, which was debated with amendment 185 in group national planning framework because of a preemption. Monica Lennon, I speak to amendment 85A and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. I completely agree with Andy Wightman's comments on strategic development planning and the committee. Our report reflected our concerns and skepticism, but, like Andy Wightman, we remain open-minded. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say in relation to amendment 85A. Again, that repeats the arguments that we made last week in relation to the national planning framework. That is about strategic development plans if we are going to retain them. Even some points that have been made earlier today in relation to the provision of housing for older people and people with disabilities, I think that that reinforces my argument to embed equality and human rights into the purpose for planning. I hope that we can still keep that under review. I know that there have been on-going discussions with colleagues on that. The reason why I have added equality at amendment 85A to supplement Andy Wightman's amendment 85 is because we have heard quite clear evidence from engender and from others that gender inequality is still not being actively considered in planning practice. We have big societal issues to deal with. They are not all for planning, but there is a clear interrelationship between gender and place. The bill is the place to try and address that. On strategic development plans, a note from the 2006 act when we moved from structure plans to strategic development plans that, in the bear with me in one of the circulars, in 2008, required strategic development plan authorities to be established to have a common approach to matters that extend beyond individual authority boundaries, such as housing markets, travel to work, hydrologies, is a good example. I also note that, in terms of governance, the circular said that strategic development plan authority should be served by a small dedicated team of officers, so that sounds very sensible. Over the summer, doing further research, speaking to Clyde Plan and others, I have learned that there are only eight full-time charter planners working across the four strategic development plan authorities. I am a bit interested to hear what the minister thinks of that, but it sounds like people have got the message from government that they want to run down the SDPAs, so people are already withdrawing resource. It does not seem adequate to me for Glasgow, Aberdeen region, Tayside, and for the stress plan area that we only have eight full-time charter planners working across those four authorities. I think that the point that I am trying to get to, minister, is that if we leave this to a voluntary code and we know how pressured resources are in planning authorities that we might not really have strategic planning at that cross boundary level, as we know it, I am happy to take the intervention yet. I was going to actually try and catch the computer's eye, but I am grateful for the specific issue of two issues briefly. One is on your amendment, Monica, about picking up Nandi's amendment gender and then adding the word equality. I am always a concern, I speak as a lawyer by trade, that the minute you start singling out certain groups, you then raise the question, which I tried to alluded to in the previous set of amendments, whether other people. Surely everybody as a basic human right has the expectation of being treated equally under planning legislation. In any event, in terms of drafting, the minute you start to subdivide a general term, whatever it may be, you risk excluding, which is not your intention, a whole series of other scenarios and situations. That would be my concern on that amendment. In terms of the strategic development plan, I am a new member to this committee, but I had thought that one of the key goals of this bill was to simplify the planning system. It seems to me that what we are in danger of doing is actually going off in all different directions and going from the status quo, which people apparently want to amend, to something that perhaps we are unleashing on the world that we do not actually intend, which is a bill that is incredibly complicated. I just make those two brief points. Thank you for taking the intervention. No, I appreciate the points that Annabelle Ewing has made. I do not have the official report from last week in front of me, but I think that one of the points that the minister perhaps was making is that, within everyday planning processes, there is consideration given to gender impact. For example, there has been an equality impact assessment of the bill. The problem is that in gender, who are a highly respected women's organisation, who have just had their 25th anniversary and the First Minister spoke in the garden lobby at their event, so they are taken very seriously. However, they have said that the equality impact assessment for the bill is pretty useless when it comes to gender. I know that the minister committed to meeting with the gender, and I am not sure if the meeting has taken place. It is important that we reassure, as a committee, that planners and others who have a role in the planning system have the tools to properly look at gender and other protected characteristics by putting gender and equality and human rights into the face of the bill and to the purpose for planning and to have that embedded at national planning framework level, at SDP level, if we are keeping them local plan level and on that daily development management level, is to make sure that that is everyone's business. It should not be complicated that it is not about trying to prioritise one person's needs over another, but when we think about gender, we are talking about women making up more than half the population here in Scotland, but if we look at a whole plethora of academic research, the built environment is still being designed largely by men for the benefit of men. It is not being done deliberately. I know that Graham Simpson is shuddering, as I say. It is regrettable that it is only Andy and I at the moment who are supporting me. I hope that Conservative members and SNP members will, when we get to SDP, become alive. On the issue of simplification, I was more referring to your second point about the role of strategic development plans to clarify. I am in favour of everybody's human rights. Of course, human rights underpin the planning bill that is a given, so I remain a wee bit perplexed as to how we are singling out the human rights of some and not others. I see dangers in that as a matter of just basic drafting. It goes back to the purpose of why we plan. That is why some members have brought forward amendments to put a purpose of planning into the bill. I am glad that the minister has come some way towards that. We all have different views on what that purpose of planning should be, but I have a suite of amendments that are seeking to improve public health through planning, not make it worse, to tackle inequality in our society through planning decisions. I know that some members only joined the committee last week, but we have heard extensive evidence that planning decisions do exacerbate inequality. We see that in the clustering of certain types of development in communities, whether that is through betting shops. Those ideas are well established and there is Parliamentary across this Parliament who raises issues routinely. However, we have a big opportunity in the legislation to embed these principles and to say what planning is thought. We can then empower planners and other decision makers to make sure that it is their responsibility. It is not about saying that women are more important than men, that people with disabilities are more important than older people without disabilities, but it is about making sure that we are aware of all those things and that when we are making planning decisions and setting planning policy, we are not blind to those consequences. I will leave that point there, convener. Just to go back to society development plans, I think that, for example, Clyde plan, which covers the area where I live, has done some really important work. Cross boundary working is really important. I do not think that we can just leave that to chance, particularly because I think that planning authorities are under so much pressure with resources. Already, during the life of this bill, we have seen staffing levels reduced to only eight planners across four strategic development plan authorities. Those are the kind of concerns that the minister has to address. Thank you very much, minister. Thank you, convener. Before I move into the guts of all of this, I would like to briefly reflect on last week's session to set the context for my comments today. I think that we all want to deliver a stronger planning system for Scotland that works for everyone. The amendments that the committee makes to this bill could have a significant impact in the way that the planning system works or does not work in the future. Based on the amendments that were agreed last week, I believe that there is a real danger that the original aims of planning reform will not be achieved. In fact, if we continue to load in more and more detailed requirements, we could end up with a system that works for no one rather than for everyone. Our proposals included removing the bureaucracy of strategic development plans and the duplication of supplementary guidance in order to produce savings in time and costs that could then be used more productively. If the committee chooses to retain these elements, there will be no savings to resource new ways of working, never mind the additional duties that members want to add. I would also ask the committee to always be aware that changes that they make to one part of the system will have wider consequences and bear in mind the responsibility that we all have to make a system that is workable. While many of the additional new duties that the committee agreed last week will fall to the Scottish Government and indeed this Parliament, I would ask members to bear in mind the particular risks around overloading local authorities with duties that they are unable to resource. If we continue to add in numerous minor amendments to this bill, together they will make the system much more complex and much harder to run, adding significant time and costs. I would encourage all members not to move their amendments unless they are confident that they will be deliverable. If the Scottish Government supports amendments in principle, I am happy to work with any and all members to ensure that they will work in practice without generating significant unintended consequences. When I laid the bill last December, I was seeking to streamline the planning system. My commitment to removing procedures that do not add value has been strongly supported not only by professional stakeholders but also by members of the public. In considering the bill, we should not lose sight of the fact that many people consider the existing system to be complicated, frustrating, time-consuming and impenetrable in many cases. I listened to what the committee said about strategic planning in its stage 1 report and brought forward a new duty for strategic planning in amendment 116. That would have reflected the committee's concerns about the loss of strategic planning. However, amendment 116 has now fallen and I may bring out the provisions on strategic planning reports and resubmit them at stage 3 to allow the Parliament to consider the options together. I know that the committee has heard calls for strategic development plans to be retained with some vocal supporters, particularly some planning professionals who have been personally involved in planning at this scale. However, I am not convinced that there has been a balance between evidence and opinion on this topic. I would ask the committee to consider whether strategic development plans in their current form are having a significant impact. From what has been said, it seems that most of the successes with strategic or regional planning were achieved decades ago, long before the current arrangements emerged. Strategic or regional planning used to have real influence and I am concerned that this is no longer the case. I have made it very clear that we want to improve and strengthen strategic planning, not to undermine it. Unfortunately, our efforts to improve flexibility and rationalise the system have been misinterpreted or misconstrued as a complete abolition of strategic planning. This has never been my intention. Mr Whiteman's amendment 42 seeks to retain strategic development plans in their current form. If the committee supports this, it means that the development plan would in the future have three tiers, including the NPF, SDPs and LDPs. Rather than streamlining, that would add complexity to the process. It would also mean that we miss significant opportunities for more collaborative working. There would be no impetus for strategic planners to get involved in the new opportunities that are emerging at a regional scale. I doubt that the pace of change and investment arising from city deals can be informed by strategic planning if planners continue to operate within a rigid development plan cycle. We need to free up planners so that they can better contribute to inclusive growth by being actively involved in regional partnerships. The amendment would retain the requirement for a new plan to be submitted within four years of the current plan being approved when the national planning framework and local development plans are moving to a 10-year cycle. I do not want strategic planning to be bogged down in procedures and for our strategic planners to adopt a plan and then immediately move on to preparing the next one rather than actively promoting its delivery and they should have a longer-term focus. I also want strategic planning to be flexible in terms of geography and the arrangements local authorities make for governance rather than being dictated and fixed in regulations. It should also allow all local authorities to decide what works best for them rather than being driven by ministers. Monica Lennon supports retaining strategic development plans but has some changes to suggest. Her proposal to replace main issues reports with an evidence report reflects the new procedures for local development plans but there would be no benefit and the much bigger opportunities arising from a new approach, an approach which is not entirely focused on preparing a plan in isolation would be lost. I have particular concerns that amendment 189 also removes the examination of strategic development plans. Presumably, Ms Lennon thinks strategic development plans would still be part of the statutory development plan but without any independent scrutiny. I would ask Mr Simpson and others to think about how the stakeholders that they have been working with, such as Homes for Scotland, would feel about that. Experience has also shown that we can have little confidence that strategic development plans would be adequate if they were not independently examined. Whilst I cannot comment on specific plans, including those that are currently before me, some strategic development plans have had problems tackling significant issues, leaving them to be addressed by the examination. I would not like to speculate on whether that is because authorities are unable to properly tackle the challenging issues or down to a reliance on the examination or ministers to make difficult decisions on their behalf. That includes issues such as housing requirements, retail and town centre allocations and major cross-boundary infrastructure requirements. I am sure that the committee can see that those are not matters of detail but significant issues that strategic development plans are failing to address. In short, amendment 189 has significant disadvantages. It does not tackle the existing issues with strategic planning in the way that my proposals would. In fact, it will compound the problems that we have seen for some years now, and in so doing, jeopardise the credibility of the planning system as a whole, and I would urge the committee not to support it. Similarly, I do not support amendment 221. This amendment seeks to insert strategic and cross-boundary planning matters into local development plans. As I said in my response to the committee's stage 1 report, that could result in a loss of strategic focus as well as duplication and confusion between plans. I now come to amendment 85 in the name of Andy Wightman and 85A in the name of Monica Lennon. As I have already set out my response to related amendments around gender and equalities, and whilst I fully recognise and support those issues, I would ask the committee to bear in mind the existing requirements under the Equality Act before adding any further duties, and I would ask that you do not support those amendments. As I have already said very briefly—very briefly—thank you—it is the engender questions that I raised a couple of times last weekend this week. Minister, have you had a meeting with engender and can you explain to the committee why you think engenders say that the quality impact statement for the bill in relation to gender is pretty useless? For respondents with engender and with other organisations, I outlined last week in great detail—I am not going to do it again, convener—all of the responsibilities that we have as ministers and as parliamentarians, which are outlined in various pieces of legislation, including the Equality Act. I think that adding that to the face of the bill takes away from what are already our duties and should cover every aspect of legislation that this Parliament sets. As I have already said, convener, I proposed a new approach to strategic planning in amendment 116, but the committee has not supported it. The original bill provisions for the national planning framework still includes scope for authorities to work together to inform the national planning framework and could allow for a more flexible approach to strategic planning. However, if strategic development plans are retained, it is unlikely that authorities will be able to work as closely with the Government in preparing the national planning framework. It also leaves the rest of the country outwith the four SDP areas operating in a different context. We estimated that the removal of the formal process around strategic development plans would free up around £2.5 million for more effective ways of working. That will no longer be available if those amendments are agreed. I will take Mr Simpson very briefly, convener. Thank you. I have listened very carefully to all the contributions. The stage 1 report merely reflected that we had heard no evidence that getting rid of strategic development plans was a good thing, and what we called for in that report was that, if we were to agree to get rid of them, there should be something more robust in its place, because we all agree that there is a need for regional working. That can be the driver of growth in Scotland, and that is what we need. We need that, but what we have not heard is something better. What I simply do to the minister is encourage him to reflect on that, think about it for stage 3, if he has better ideas to talk to people about them, and that may well be the stage to look at this again. I put forward better ideas in amendment 116. Unfortunately, that was rejected by the committee last week, but I fully intend, at stage 3, to bring back similar proposals. I am always willing to talk to members about aspects of that. Mr Simpson knows that my office door is open, but I reiterate the points that I have made about those amendments today. I reiterate the point that, as it stands at the moment, we have four areas that are planning strategically. Other areas need to look at that. I look at Mr Gibson. If the airshare deal is the next growth deal that we have, it would be good if there was flexibility within the airshares to plan strategically at a regional level. If 116 had been accepted, the proposals in there would have given that opportunity. Again, I would say that the committee should not underestimate the importance of the decisions that it will make on the group of amendments. If members decide to retain strategic development plans or were still an even more unworkable version of them, they are increasing, not reducing complexity and duplication within the system and allowing a small but vocal group of planners in Scotland to cling to an outdated and ineffective pursuit which costs a lot and provides very little benefit in return. I expect that Mr Wightman and Ms Lennon will press their amendments, but I would urge the committee to reject them today. This is a Government bill. The onus is on the Government to make a case for change, and our job in Parliament is to scrutinise that case and assess whether it is well made or not. The views of the committee at stage 1 were that that case has not been made. As I think I indicated last week, it may not have, but I will this week. There are the strategic development parts of amendment 116 containing some merit. Of course, the problem that we had with 116 was that it not only did it seek to make changes to section 1, but it was trying to make changes to section 2 at the same time as well. Therefore, we did not really have much choice in the matter. Time remains—we will have three or four weeks yet to get through stage 2—time remains to have further discussions about how some of the problems that the minister claims exist in the current system can be rectified. In preparation for that, my amendment 42 retains the status quo, which I think is the appropriate thing to do where a case has not been well made. I am very open to having discussions about, for example, cycles and strategic development planning. I am very happy to have discussions about the kind of ideas that the minister has around the future of regional planning. I think that there can be changes that can be made. I think that there are deficiencies in the current system, but I repeat that the case for change, particularly the case that has been made and the details that have been put forward, that are essentially voluntary and also place a significant responsibility for regional planning on ministers—who are responsible, in my view, for national planning, principally—is not, in my view, robust regional planning. On the question of— Mr Wightman, as I pointed out in my contribution, one of the difficulties that we have with strategic development planning that exists at this moment in time is that it is not robust, and during the course of the examination, it often falls to ministers and others to point out the difficult decisions that the current set-up SDPs will not take. I am in a difficult position, convener, in terms of giving examples on all of that, because some of those matters are still alive, but I would ask all members of the committee to look at some of the difficulties that there have been in recent times when it comes to things such as agreement on housing numbers or even constructing infrastructure. There is a critical difference between whether a process is robust and whether the plans produced as a consequence of that process are robust. I have heard the minister correctly, he is talking about deficiencies in the plans presented at examination. I would want to further convince him that those deficiencies are a consequence of a flawed process. I am perfectly happy to listen to that evidence and be persuaded on that evidence, because this bill is about process. On the question of gender, the proposal in amendment 85 is for a statement. That all requires a statement, a statement to be made in this instance in a strategic development plan. I hear what the minister says about the broader duties placed on public authorities around equalities, etc. I do not dispute them, they exist. However, the point about a statement is that it is a means to assess whether those duties that the minister rightly argues exist are being upheld. I am most grateful to Andy Wightman for taking the intervention. I will make the same point. What about a statement on housing needs of vets? Everybody has an expectation of being treated fairly under the planning system. That includes issues regarding gender and other protected characteristics. My point is that we are creating a system for everybody. Therefore, the minute you start limiting who those particular provisions are to apply to, there is danger that you are not treating everybody fairly. Thank you to Annabelle Ewing for her intervention on housing for vets and disabled children, etc. That is not in the same domain as the question that we are considering here on gender. There is a lot of academic evidence that the planning system is highly gendered. That academic existence is fairly broad. I could point the member to the plans in Vienna, which are regarded as very progressive and have identified a huge range of issues on which planning outcomes have been highly gendered and have sought to rectify them. That is a major problem. It affects half the population. Although I totally take on board that the planning system should deal with everyone with appropriate needs, I do not think that they are on the same scale as the evidence that has been presented in relation to gender. The requirement to make this statement—I will conclude here. Members will like to take an intervention and make it very brief, minister. I will be very brief, because the statement is very similar to the EQIA required by the Equality Act, which is enforceable by the EHRC. That stands alone, so I do not see what the difficulty in all of this is and why it requires a separate statement in this legislation when the legislation that already exists is all-encompassing. I take that point. I return, however, to my point that there is a substantial body of evidence that shows that the planning system in many countries continues to be highly gendered, and a statement is the means to assess whether those duties that the minister refers to are indeed being upheld. Just to conclude, the point of putting this on the face of the bill is to require planning authorities to have some consideration on this point, to make a statement. That statement need not be lengthy—it can be as detailed or as lengthy as a planning authority wishes. However, it forces a consideration of that question. If we do not embed that, the danger is that the flaws that exist in the system that are systemic will remain. I ask you to press up a draw. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those who are in favour, those who are opposed, that is 4-3. I call amendment 85 in the name of Andy Wightman. I have already debated with amendment 42. I call amendment 85A in the name of Monica Lennon, and I have already debated with amendment 42. The question therefore is that amendment 85A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those who are in favour, those who are opposed, that is 5-2. Thank you. The amendment falls. Andy Wightman to press up a draw. Amendment 85 moved. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour, those who are opposed, that is 85 falls. I call amendment 189 in the name of Monica Lennon. I have already debated with amendment 42. The question is that amendment 189 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of 189, those who are opposed, that is 4-3 for 189. The amendment is passed. I call amendment 221 in the name of Monica Lennon. I have already debated with amendment 42. The question is that amendment 221 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour, those against, 4-3 in favour. Amendment 221 is agreed to. I think that at this point it might be a suitable time to take a short break. Let's have a five-minute comfort break and then come back and get started again. I will now call amendment 86 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Thank you very much, convener. We are now on to a group on local development plans. I move amendment 86 in my name. Amendment 86 incorporates the same statement on how a local development plan will take account of gender. We have discussed this at length, and I won't say anything more on that. Amendment 173 provides a local development plan to include a statement on plans and policies in relation to listed buildings. That provides an opportunity to highlight to owners of such buildings the kind of use that the planning authority considers appropriate. I have had quite extensive discussion with interested parties on that. Although there is some interest in that and they feel there is some merit in some of that, this amendment may be more appropriately drafted to refer only to buildings on a register of buildings in disappeared risk. I have been interested in the views of the committee, and I will consider not pressing this amendment and discussing it further for stage 3. Amendment 176 requires planning authority to take into account the open spaces strategy proposed under amendment 171, already debated and agreed. I am broadly supportive of most other amendments in the group. I want to speak to amendment 163 in the name of John Finnie, who is unable to be here today. John moved last week and the committee passed amendment 160. That sought to have the national planning framework have regard to the desirability of preserving disused railway infrastructure for the purpose of ensuring its availability for possible future public transport requirements. Amendment 163 makes exactly the same ask but with regard to the local development plan and clearly amendment 160 was indeed supported, and therefore I think that it would be logical to support amendment 163. That is all that I have to say, convener. Thank you very much. That was commendably brief. If anybody else wants to follow that example, I would be more than happy. Monica Lennon moved amendment 860, and I will speak to all other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Like Andy, I will not labour the points on gender and equality. I think that we have made those arguments and we will keep making them at later meetings. On 107, convener, this is about asking planning authorities to assess the health implications of decisions. I appreciate the minister's point last week that land use planning can't reach into every aspect of health, but I don't believe that that justifies excluding health considerations from the local development plan. I hope that the committee will agree and take the opportunity to improve health outcomes in this manner. Thank you very much, Monica Lennon. Kenneth Gibson, to speak to amendment 172 and other amendments in the group. Yes, thank you, convener. Amendments 172, 174, 175 and 54A, in my name, are the last four of a set of amendments to facilitate the provision of sufficient homes that meet the specific needs of older people and disabled people. In this respect, it is important that local development plans should be informed by the national targets and the national planning framework, as we have already agreed last week. Amendments 172 specifies the need for the local development plan to include targets for the provision of housing for older people and disabled people for the part to which it relates. That should include the adaptation of existing housing to meet the housing needs of older people and disabled people and the building of new housing to meet the needs of older people and disabled people. Amendment 174 seeks to ensure that local development plans include a detailed statement of the priority that has been given by the planning authority to address the housing needs of older people and disabled people, and the policy and proposals of planning authority is progressing and will progress. Amendment 175 would require planning authorities to include details in local development plans of any land designated for the development of older people's housing and make an important contribution to addressing the housing needs of older people and disabled people by ensuring that the planning authority's focus on their housing needs has been preparing LDPs. Amendment 54 is simply an amendment to Alexander Stewart's amendment 54, merely to add and disabled people to his own comments. Graham Swanson, to speak to amendment 34. Thanks, convener. I'll try not to take up too much time. I've got a few amendments here. 34, 35, 73, 36, 37, 7 and 75. It's not as bad as it sounds. The theme behind many of the amendments is around the protection of the green belt and localising of decision making. If we look at amendment 34 first, the intention there is for local planning authorities to prepare and maintain a register of previously developed brownfield land. The amendment would effectively mean that councils would direct development to brownfield land ahead of green belt. The key word in the amendment is presumption, so there is some flexibility there, which I think is important. I think that that's got to be right because every bit of evidence that this committee has certainly heard shows the need to keep green spaces for people's physical and mental health, and that's the intention behind it. The effect of amendment 34 would also be to direct development into existing towns and cities, maybe even town centres, and that's sorely needed. Like another amendment that I have here, I realise that this is probably not the finished article, and I may well need to make some changes at stage 3, and I'm happy to have discussions about that. Now, convener, I've always believed that variety is the spice of life, and that applies to homes as well as other things. We should be making things easier for people to build their own homes. One way of doing this is to make plots easily identified through a register of self-build plots. Amendment 35, which is welcomed by Scottish Land and Estates, would facilitate this. The register would be publicly visible, and people who wish to build their own homes could express an interest in the plots. Now, there's a similar thing down south, but the difference there is that there are registers of those who are interested in building self-build, and that's kept by councils. That sort of scheme was put in place by the Greater London Authority, where public land was released for development, and it did help to increase the housing supply across the area. The scheme run by the GLA was imaginatively called Build Your Own London Home Register. It could easily be reproduced as a Build Your Own Scottish Home Register, why we reinvent the wheel. The register could empower people to shape their own living spaces the way they want and contribute to vibrant and varied communities. Facilitating this custom-build approach would empower individuals and groups and strengthen neighbourhood links and create local construction jobs, which is a good thing. Do you remember taking into consideration—certainly? Thank you to Graham Simpson. I think that it's certainly an interesting concept. It's certainly not onerous on planning authorities for individuals to declare themselves as being interested in self-build. However, if a planning authority is to provide a list of sites that I'm presuming map-based for every piece of land that could be suitable for self-build, that's a pretty serious task, and to keep that up-to-date would be very resource intensive. I'm just wondering if Graham Simpson can say more about what he thinks this would look like in practice, because it sounds like a very big job. Would that include, for example, someone who has a very large garden and their cartilage might lend itself to subdivision, but that homeowner might have no interest in selling up a bit of their land? I just wonder how that works and how it could work in practice. I'm just checking if Mr Stewart is all right. He's doing a lot of coughing. It's a very fair question. I just want to make sure that Mr Stewart is okay before I answer it. I think that it's a good point, and this will be another amendment that I think if passed could be improved on for stage 3, because the way I would see this working is that it could apply just to council-owned land, because I take Monica Lennon's point that to widen it out to non-council land would be an enormous task, but I'd like to think that people would see the merit in the proposal, and I'm certainly prepared to look at it again for stage 3. When it comes to the formulation of local development plans, I felt that the planning bill had left out a few vital considerations, so amendments 36, 37 and 75 would ensure that housing need, educational service and built heritage are taken into consideration when local development plans are being put together. I believe that the local development plan should be consistent with the NPF. The NPF will now go through a lot of scrutiny, thanks to the amendment in my name passed last week, and it will provide the direction of development on the national scale, but it seems to me only sensible that plans need to be joined up, and local development plans should be consistent with the national planning framework, so amendment 7 is merely to make that happen, and there we are. It wasn't too painful, was it? Well, thank you anyway. I welcome Alison Johnstone to speak to an amendment, and I should have said earlier on welcome to all the other MSPs who are here that they aren't members of the committee with their amendments, but there were so many, I thought I'd take half the meeting up. Alison, can I ask you to speak to amendment 161 and other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I'm very pleased to be here today. Amendments 161 and 1662 seek to introduce a requirement for planning authorities to consider the provision of public conveniences and water refill stations as part of their local development plans, and I'll deal first with amendment 161 on the provision of public conveniences. A lack of accessible and functioning public toilets reduces the quality of our neighbourhoods, of our parks, of all our public places, and it reduces the quality of our lives. We're seeing the widespread closure of public conveniences across the country with the number of council-owned bathrooms falling from 759 in 2000 to 421 this year, and the press and journal found that, on average, Scottish local authorities have closed 45 per cent of their public toilets. The NHS estimates that three to six million people in the UK suffer from some degree of urinary incontinence, and the shortage of public toilets can hamper their quality of life. This is an issue that affects all age groups, the elderly, young children. It affects us all, disabled people, pregnant women, active travellers, needing free and easy access to clean toilets. It really does affect us all. Age UK highlights that this is an issue that's preventing many old people from going out and about on a daily basis. They're losing their confidence, they're reluctant to visit new places, and this, of course, increases isolation. As we live in an ageing society, this isn't going to go away, it's going to become more of an issue, and that's perhaps why the World Health Organization chose to highlight the availability of clean, conveniently located, well-signed disabled accessible toilets as a major indicator in its age-friendly cities guides. I'd just like to make clear that the intention here isn't to introduce a statutory duty to provide public conveniences, but to require a planning authority to give full consideration as to whether the provision of toilets can improve our public places as part of its overall plans for a local area. This could be part of a community access scheme, such as that run by the City of Edinburgh Council, where businesses are paid £500 a year to allow free access to their toilets. New developments could be encouraged to plan for their toilets to be accessible to the public in a similar manner, and I'll now turn to amendment 162. This seeks, in a similar fashion, to require planning authorities to consider the provision of water refill locations in its local development plan. When the blight of plastic pollution has come to the fore over the past year, with shocking footage emerging of the damage through away plastics have on environments around the world. The Scottish Government has already shown initiative by pledging to bring forward a ban on plastic-stemmed cotton buds, for example, but this amendment seeks to reduce our need for single-use plastic bottles by encouraging local authorities to provide the infrastructure needed to give access to free water refill locations. This is an urgent environmental problem. Fewer than half of the bottles that were bought in 2016 were collected for recycling, and only 7 per cent of those collected were turned into new bottles. Certainly, Mr Simpson. I think that these are very interesting areas, but I just want to be clear. I think that you've possibly touched on it earlier that this would not compel councils to provide water fountains or toilets, because clearly the reason why we have fewer public toilets is that councils have less money. It won't compel them to provide them, Mr Simpson, but it will compel them to include a statement of their intentions in this regard. I'm sure that colleagues around the table are finding that this is an increasing topic of mail-bag correspondence. I represent Lothian, but I've been contacted by people here in Lothian, and as far afield as the Highlands on this matter, as well as my role as health and spokesperson. The indignity and lack of privacy that some people have had to endure while travelling about this country, trying to carry out a perfectly normal bodily function, is completely unacceptable. The least that we can ask is that a planning authority sets out what its intentions are, because local authorities are closing facilities and it is having an impact on our health, but it doesn't compel them to provide a single toilet block, as the City of Edinburgh Council has demonstrated. There are various ways of dealing with this, and I would just like to understand what it is that local authorities intend. Pauline, would you like to come in? Thank you very much, convener. I just wanted to add my voice to the issues that Alison Johnson is raising. It would be remiss of me since the cross-party group on inflammatory bowel diseases meeting tonight, and, like many other groups, it's a big campaign for those who suffer. We know that in Scotland there's been a rise of young people with inflammatory bowel diseases. They are part of a scheme, if you get a key for the radar scheme. It's quite important, but with the reducing number of facilities it's causing a real problem. Perhaps we're in the dark ages in Scotland that you can't just use a public toilet when you need to, but certainly there are people in society with great needs of others, and I just wanted to add to the record that people with IBD, growing incidents in Scotland, need to be able to have the confidence when they're out and about that they can access a public toilet. I thank colleagues for those interventions. We probably all grew up in an era where public water fountains were the norm, and as they've disappeared, there's been an increased reliance on single-use plastic bottles. The Victorians introduced public conveniences and fountains into our towns and cities, but we have lost many of them because it's quicker and convenient sometimes to go and buy a bottle. I am heartened. I am seeing local businesses now saying that they can refill their water bottle here, but I think that it would be helpful to understand what the options are across the country. It would cut back plastic waste. It costs us all a fortune. It's one of the things that we're paying for through our council tax, so there's a saving to be made there too, as well as an environmental benefit. Scotland could follow the lead taken by the Netherlands. It has a programme called Join the Pipe, and it's installed more than 2,000 water taps throughout the country in public spaces, parks, sports fields, schools, and it provides convenient refill. It's also selling its own refillable bottles. The city of Amsterdam sells its own refillable bottles to encourage tourists not to go down the single-use plastic route. Closer to home, campaigners in Bristol have encouraged 200 businesses to sign up to a scheme to allow people to refill bottles for free. It's about making sure that there's public awareness too as to what's available. It's undoubtedly the case that some people still feel, even when you can access a public convenience in a local cafe or something, that people have to understand that that's acceptable, because we have people who are very uncomfortable still asking for keys to use a public toilet. They may be uncomfortable asking for code, so there'll have to be some education around this too. The mayor of London is currently overseeing the roll-out of public fountains across Scotland, and I'm sure that we'd all agree that Scottish water is—I'm not going to say anything bad about water in London, but we have great water here in Scotland, and we should really be making the most of it. Thank you, Alison. I just want to speak to welcome both of those amendments, and I think that your commentary has been really useful. I think that, hopefully, we all agree that access to toilets into drinking water is a basic human right, and certainly some of us, through the opportunities that the bill presents, are trying to embed that into every part of the planning system. I recently spoke to Morvan Brooks, as a chief executive of Disability Equality Scotland, and again, the points that you've already made, but she talked about disabled people being humiliated, people being stuck at home. We've got other parts of government looking to work on strategies to tackle loneliness and social isolation. I think that what we're all trying to do here is to make sure that all those strands of policy are joined up. Alison's amendments are proportionate, because it's asking planning authorities to be mindful and to provide a statement, to acknowledge some of the issues and some of the challenges. Certainly, implementation and delivery is a matter for others. It might be for the council, but it might be for others. In a positive note, the more we raise awareness, if I can give the example of Network Rail, so here in Edinburgh, whether campaign hat on around period poverty, they've agreed that they'll remove the toilet charges and they'll provide water fountains next year. Again, if we can put that into the minds of every planning authority, it will spark conversations like that with developers and other partners in the public sector. I think that those kind of amendments really do add value to the planning bill. I just remind people that when you're intervening to make your intervention short, we've got a lot to get through and we've got very little time to get through it. Alison? Yeah, I'm just closing, convener. I think that amendment 162 could encourage planning authorities to go further along the path that I might be describing and allow local authorities to innovate their own schemes to provide free drinking water and reduced levels of plastic waste. Thank you very much for that. Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 222 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I speak to amendment 222 and 223 in my name. I've been working with Includions Scotland and Age Scotland on these two amendments, which essentially deal with accessible housing and dementia-friendly homes. It has already been mentioned by Kenny Gibson and Alexander Stewart previously, so perhaps there's some duplication, but I'll speak to what my amendments seek to do. I agree that the planning system alone cannot provide a complete solution, but we need to encourage bolder action on housing that is needed for disabled people and housing that is dementia-friendly. 14 per cent of households in Scotland include someone who uses a wheelchair or mobility aid, but yet only 0.7 per cent of Scottish local authority housing and 1.5 of housing association property is accessible for wheelchairs. Research by Horizon and the Chartered Institute of Housing in 2012 estimated that there were over 17,000 wheelchair users in Scotland with unmet housing needs, and that is widely accepted to be an underestimate. The Government has a commitment to build 50,000 new homes, which is welcome, but it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address the shortfall in this type of housing need. Some local authorities have specific targets in place regarding the provision of wheelchair housing. Glasgow City Council, for example, in its strategic housing investment plan, says states and requires all housing developments of over 20 units are over to deliver 10 per cent of units as readily adaptable and should ensure that the housing stock across the city becomes more accessible. Inverclyde local housing strategy states that there should be a target of 3 per cent of all new-build social housing to be wheelchair accessible. There may be other authorities, but it is clear to me that it is not wide enough and we know that we have a demographic issue with older people and the need for dementia-friendly housing. I just want to see what the amendments actually do. Amendment 222 and 223 are similar models, but what they do is that they require the local development plan to include a summary of action and analysis of how the design was helped to meet the needs of disabled people, an estimate of the new housing and an estimate of existing homes that could be adapted to make them more accessible. Subsection 2A defines accessible design to take into account the needs of mental health needs in particular. Amendment 223 addresses the question of dementia friendly housing. It is worth noting that there are no national targets for housing for older people. If there are, I am certainly not aware of this and I checked this with Spice. The Scottish Government published a refresh of the strategy for housing for older people in August 2018, but there is no mention of any targets for older people. We know that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The structure of amendment 223 is a similar model. It requires a summary of action and analysis of how design has helped to meet the needs. An estimate of the existing housing will be adapted using age and dementia-friendly design. Subsection 2A, age and dementia-friendly design, means that it should take into account the needs including mental health and the well-being needs of older people in the construction and the adaption of housing. I hope that the committee could support that. Jeremy Balfour spoke to amendment 52 and other amendments in the group. Can I talk briefly about amendment 52? It builds on what we have already heard from previous members. However, amendment 52 goes slightly further, in that it stipulates that local authorities will be required to earmark sufficient and appropriate sites to help to reduce the current chronic shortfall of suitable properties available for those who are older and with disabilities. I agree with Pauline McNeill and answer the minister's point that this is not the only thing that will solve the issue, but it is an important step to have it on the face of the bill. Maybe to pick up a point that Annabelle Ewing has made previously about why we pick out disability and older people. The reason for that is that the type of housing that is required is different from perhaps people who are veterans or who are single parents. I heard an almost tragic tale recently in another part of Scotland, not in Edinburgh, where, after building a number of houses, they realised that we needed to put two disabled flats in and they basically had to redesign the whole flat, take everything out and do it again because no one had thought about it at an earlier stage. That is not the way that we should be going at the moment. Often, when we think of disability, we think of wheelchairs, which Pauline McNeill has talked about already, but disability goes beyond just those who have wheelchair access. Design of houses must accommodate people with different types of disability, whether that is hidden or whether that is very obvious. We need to be thinking at an early stage in regard to that. Clearly, older people's housing and disability housing can often, because of the adaptations that are required, be more expensive. When a piece of land comes up, it may well go to just general housing or retail or office development because simply of the cost factors, and unless there is stipulated within that, I feel that that will go on. The other benefit of doing this is that it will release house and sectors. If older people have more appropriate homes that they can move into at an older age, they may then be able to give up the traditional family home, which will then put it on to the market and allow perhaps up to 33 burns worth of homes on to a knock-on effect in regard to an economic boost in my area. I think that this is an important signal. I think that it is an important obligation on local authorities. Unless we start addressing the issues around disability and older people, we are going to face major problems in the years ahead. I am going to ask Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 224, other amendments in the group, including, I believe that you are going to speak on behalf of Clare Baker for amendment 82, Rhoda Grant. I will first speak to amendment 224, and I will not rehearse the arguments that I made last week about the importance of repopulation and resettlement. Amendment 224 is the same as 217 that was debated and moved last week and indeed passed by the committee on the national planning framework. That relates to the local development plan, and it refers to the desirability of allocating land for the purpose of resettlement. That would make that one of the matters to be considered in the preparation of the local development plans. If I can move to amendment 82 in the name of Clare Baker, and it is very similar in that it complements amendment 71 that was agreed to last week in the national planning framework as well. It adds cultural to the list of characteristics to be considered in local development plans, recognising the importance of cultural assets and acknowledging their importance in decision-making. Alexander Stewart spoke to amendment 54 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendment will ensure that the evidence reports which planning authorities will have to prepare must consider older people's housing needs. In the report, it indicates that the planning authority are to submit the evidence reports for the Scottish ministers, who will then appoint a person to assess the reports that contains enough information for planning authorities for people and individuals of older nature. The amendment will ensure that the evidence reports consider the housing needs of older people. Thank you, convener. Alasdair Allan spoke to amendment 191 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. As I mentioned last week, I have been working with Community Alliance Scotland around amendments that would promote the needs of parts of Scotland, which have become depopulated and encourage the repopulation. The amendments that I am talking about today have the same theme. I was gratified last week that the committee supported unanimously the ideas that I and others were putting forward around this, even if the section of the bill or the amendment of the bill that was being sought to be amended did not survive that meeting. I should say that amendment 191 is not dependent in any way on the arguments for or against amendment 116. Amendment 191 amend section 155 of the 1997 act, so that planning authorities will have to take into account rural areas, where there has been a substantial decline in population when they prepare the local development plan's spatial strategy. Amendment 192 cross-references the provisions of 191 with the regulations that ministers would have the power to make, and I hope that both amendments will gain support on those grounds. Minister, to speak to amendment 117 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. There are many amendments in this group, and I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible. I have listened carefully while members have spoken about a wide range of matters for local development plans to address, and I am not entirely convinced that everything that has been put forward is a matter for a local development plan to address. Planning touches on so many areas that this part of the bill could be endless if we tried to name everything that local development plans should cover. Some of the amendments relate to policies that already exist in Scottish planning policy, which the committee has agreed should be incorporated into the national planning framework. Last week, I reminded the committee that we are trying to streamline the system, and I will make that point again today. I would also ask the members to bear in mind that primary legislation should ideally avoid listing every relevant planning policy or issue. Following my comments last week, I am happy to support amendment 225 from Claudia Beamish on renewable energy, amendment 163 from John Finnie on disused railways, and amendment 82 from Claire Baker on culture. On the issue of repopulating rural areas, I support Alistair Allen's amendments 191 and 192, but I maintain my view that Rhoda Grant's amendment 224 on this issue goes too far. I also explained last week that assessments relating to gender and equality are more fully covered by the duties that I have talked about earlier today as well, the Equality Act 2010, and the existing equality duty in the 1997 act, so I cannot support amendments 86 and 86A. Health impact assessment is included in strategic environmental assessment, so I do not support amendments 107, 110 and 111. In relation to amendment 108, I agree that development planning should take into account the capacity of health services. I believe that that would fit more appropriately in subsection D of section 15 that relates to infrastructure, but I am content to support that amendment. Again, I find it difficult to support the breadth of amendment 109. Planning authorities cannot be expected to identify and address all the health needs of the population of their areas. I am, however, able to support the more appropriate approach in amendment 110. There are eight amendments from different members that seek to ensure that the housing needs of older people and disabled people are appropriately reflected in local development plans. I have previously explained that a lot of work is already being done on this, and it is well covered by policy and practice as well as the programme for government. It is clear from the amendments that there are different views on how this issue should be addressed in local development plans, and we cannot fully prescribe how this complex issue should be addressed in primary legislation. I agree that this is an important matter now and will be even more so in the future, but we cannot reasonably include all those amendments as there is a degree of duplication and overlap. I therefore suggest that amendment 54 from Alexander Stewart with amendment 54A from Kenneth Gibson would be the best way of ensuring that the legislation reflects this issue without attempting to cover it to an inappropriate level of detail. I would ask the committee to support those amendments and reject the others relating to this matter. I should also say that, at this moment, a lot of the issues that have been talked about today are being looked at in a refreshed local housing strategy. That is the best place to consider the needs of individuals in relation to age or disability. We cannot assess how existing homes meet the needs of their occupants at a strategic level, and adaptations, as I said earlier, which are the responsibility of health and social care partnerships, do not very often require planning permission. I would ask members to agree 54 from Alexander Stewart with amendment 54A from Kenneth Gibson. I will not dwell on amendments 36 and 37 from Graham Simpson relating to housing and education. I would ask the committee not to support them and, instead, to agree amendment 117 in my name. The wording of amendment 117 better reflects established planning terminology in relation to housing. I consider that education facilities should be identified as an essential type of infrastructure, rather than the more broadly termed amendment 37 from Graham Simpson. I would be happy to work with Monica Lennon to add health services there, too. In amendment 35, Graham Simpson proposes adding a requirement for local development plans to set a list for self-built housing sites in that amendment. Diversifying housing delivery was supported by the independent review panel, and we have since undertaken a programme of work to support and promote self-and-custom build here in Scotland. That includes £160,000 challenge fund for pilot projects, and we have launched a national £4 million self-build loan fund to support self-builders who are unable to access standard bank lending. I have some concerns about how that fits with current practice on allocating sites and local development plans, so some adjustment may be needed. However, I support the principle and am happy to support this amendment. Turning to amendment 176 on open space, again, I recognise that this is an important policy issue. However, I have already set out my thoughts on amendment 171. Those thoughts also apply here, so I do not support that. In amendment 34, Graham Simpson seeks to introduce a presumption in favour of developing brownfield land before any land designated as greenbelt land is developed. It includes a requirement for planning authorities to maintain a register of brownfield land that is suitable for residential use, although presumption would not be limited to residential use. I agree with the broad sentiments behind this amendment. This is not a new idea but a classic town planning debate that has gone on for some time, but I have a number of significant concerns. I do not support the introduction of a blanket presumption in favour or indeed against any particular type of development in a particular location. That does not allow for local circumstances and the merits of each case to be taken into account. Brownfield sites share characteristics, but they are not all the same. Whether they are suitable or viable for development depends on a range of factors, including neighbouring and compatible uses and their proximity to infrastructure, such as public transport, schools and health facilities. Brownfield sites can offer temporary or permanent greening opportunities within towns and cities, while equally, there can be brownfield sites in the greenbelt, such as abandoned agricultural buildings that would do well to be redeveloped. It is not such a clear-cut issue, as Mr Simpson's amendment would suggest. The amendment could have a significant impact on the viability of residential development and the number of homes that can be delivered. It removes the discretion and local knowledge that planning authorities can use to direct the right development to the right place. A standardised approach to the question of planning for housing and protection of the greenbelt is not, in my view, the right solution. Several amendments relate to built heritage. I have no objection—I will finish this part first, Mr Simpson. Several amendments relate to built heritage. I have no objection to Graham Simpson's amendment 73, and I agree that this is an important part of the quality, distinctiveness and identity of our many places that it would be useful to highlight. I will take Mr Simpson in now, convener. Thank you very much. I completely take on board what the minister said in my opening remarks. I did not think that this was the finished article by any stretch of the imagination. Can the minister indicate that he is prepared to work with me on something for stage 3, and I will not press it? I will certainly speak to Mr Simpson about this issue without making any major commitment here today. The problem that I have is that presumption that is required in legislation is perhaps not as flexible as Mr Simpson thinks it may be. It is certainly not as flexible as the policy approach that we already have, which will be strengthened through the inclusion of Scottish planning policy in the national planning framework. I am more than happy to have further discussions with Mr Simpson on this and any other matter that he wishes, and I would be grateful if he did not press that amendment today. Amendment 75 relates to Graham Simpson's proposal for a new system for protecting locally significant buildings. I consider that unnecessary. This would create an additional statutory list of buildings that are locally significant. I am not aware of any evidence or consultation supporting this proposal other than anecdote in a general view that more needs to be done to safeguard the built heritage. Protection and enhancement of the historic environment is already supported by existing legislation under the planning list of buildings and conservation areas Scotland at 1997. The list enables buildings to be listed according to their relative importance, A, B or C. All categories of the same level of protection and C listing includes buildings of local importance. It is difficult to estimate how many buildings would be included. I believe that there are around 47,500 listed buildings in Scotland at the moment. A new list could be a major undertaking if it seeks to pick up additional, less significant buildings that have a purely local value. This will clearly be a substantial additional activity and burden for local authorities. Similarly, Andy Wightman would require local development plans to include policies and proposals for the use of listed buildings. This is already addressed in Scottish planning policy and local development plans. I see no need to repeat that policy in primary legislation. Alison Johnstone proposes amendments relating to provision of public conveniences and water refills stations. Of course, I recognise the importance of public conveniences and it is very welcome that great progress is being made towards reducing waste and ensuring that taps are available for refilling water bottles. However, I urge the committee to consider whether that is really a matter for planning authorities and local development plans to address. Ms Johnstone rightly highlighted in her speech that we are talking about policy areas that could be pursued by local authorities using other means. Community access scheme policies, as Ms Johnstone highlighted, are great things, but, quite frankly, they have nothing to do with planning. I appreciate everything that the minister has said about streamlining legislation. I personally loathe clutter and I am all for streamlining. However, I think that we can at times take streamlining too far. Access to sanitation and water remain the most off track of all millennium development goals. That is at a global level, but here in this country it is clear that more and more people are experiencing difficulty going to the toilet. I think that this is a really good opportunity to stress the importance of the two issues that we all need for survival to be blunt. I recognise all that Alison Johnstone has said in that regard, but I would argue that planning does not—particularly local development planning—is not the place to deal with those issues. What we are talking about in terms of local development planning is dealing with large areas and what will or will not be built on them. I think that the problem that there is with all of this—who was asking for that? I will take my issue down yet. I find Alison Johnstone's remark really interesting and many important points were raised. Alison Johnstone has just reiterated that she is keen that the importance of those issues is stressed. I agree with that. I do tend to agree with the minister that I am not entirely sure that the planning bill is the place for this to happen. What I would ask the minister is whether he would be prepared having heard the seriousness with which those issues have been raised and supported, I suspect, by members around the table today. Would he undertake to raise those issues in his normal dialogue with COSLA so that we can see the improvements that Alison Johnstone is wishing to see? I am more than happy to do that. My dialogue with COSLA covers many areas, and I am more than happy to bring up those issues with COSLA. I think—I will take Ms McNeill before— Thank you. Is that okay? It is very small. Well, this is the last intervention. I just wondered then, perhaps, if you wanted to build a large department store in Glasgow and you wanted to create a duty for local authorities to build public, where would be the appropriate place to do it if it is not in a planning bill? I am willing to be able to mind it about that. Well, in terms of any planning application, each local authority can look at what the situation is and make requirements around about building. There is a further amendment at a later stage from Mr Balfour, which is a very wise amendment that we will deal with at a later point, where it sets out a particular thing for a particular situation in terms of the size and all of the rest of the building. That is a wise thing. What is very difficult is to encompass all of that in local development plan policy. I would say that the difficulty that we have is not necessarily about what is coming. It is often a matter of how existing facilities are used and choices that are made by local authorities and others. I think that I have covered all gamets on that. I would not be supportive of those amendments, but I am happy to have further discussions with Alison Johnson. If anyone wants to make an intervention, can you please do it through the convener? We need to be realistic about what development plans can achieve. As has been pointed out throughout, we want to streamline the system and be better able to move ahead with delivering needed development, including policies on such detailed matters within local development plans. It does not sit comfortably in a new system that should be less bogged down if you excuse the pun in detail and more focused on the bigger picture. Graham Simpson proposes that local development plans must be consistent with the national planning framework rather than taking it into account. That may appear to be a minor difference, but the two different forms of wording could have a very different effect in practice. I consider that that could have significant implications for the development plan system as a whole. I believe that amendment has been inspired by Homes for Scotland, who wants to see consistency within the system. However, I believe that they also want planning to respond to changing circumstances. There may well be good reasons for flexibility. Specific local circumstances may justify a more tailored local approach or more up-to-date information could emerge from land audits after the national planning framework has been adopted. That requirement for consistency has caused significant problems in the existing planning system. Local development plans that come forward late have to be consistent with housing targets set out in strategic development plans years earlier and cannot take into account more recent evidence. We want plans to reflect the best available information, rather than slavishly following a fixed and out-of-date hierarchy. If the wording of the bill requires consistency, local development plans would, in every case, be expected to simply incorporate the national planning framework without being able to question or adjust it. We consider that the requirement to take account of maintains the connection but allows for greater flexibility when there is an evidence reason for it. I am a bit surprised at the amendment, given Mr Simpson's concerns about centralisation, and I hope that the committee will not support it. To conclude, I agree that some matters of strategic importance should be explicitly required in local development plans. However, some of those amendments go too far towards setting out policy in primary legislation or addressing relatively narrow issues, and risk that authorities will focus on the mixed bag of statutory requirements at the expense of more coherent planning policy. To conclude and at the risk of repeating myself, convener, I ask the committee to bear in mind that we are seeking to simplify and streamline the system, rather than making it more complicated and unwieldy. Some of those amendments introduce significant new requirements at a time when local authority planning services are already very stretched. I hope that the committee will reflect on that and be clear that new duties are necessary and really add value before they support them. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, minister. I will now ask Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 225 and other amendments in the group. Right. Thank you, convener. I wish to speak to my amendment 225, which follows on from my earlier amendment 218, which was passed by the committee last week and sought to include the provision of information on renewable energy land available to assist Scottish ministers in preparing the national planning framework. I welcome the minister's support for amendment 225, and I am not going to rehearse all the arguments again, but just extremely briefly, it is important that it is recognised in local development plans that renewable energy is something that has to be taken clearly into account. My amendment adds a specific opportunity for this to happen to be added to energy in the infrastructure of a district. In our shift to zero carbon to conclude, we need to seriously focus on climate-friendly infrastructure options. I am delighted that the minister is supporting and I hope that the committee will consider doing so, too. Monica Lennon wants to come in briefly because she has a good idea to say a helpful suggestion. There is just a humble suggestion on Alison Johnston's 161, because I do believe that Alison has raised a really important issue. If I could recommend some reading to the minister, I am sure that your officials will be familiar with the work that Professor Clara Greed, who is an imminent planning academic, has written extensively on the subject of gender, but on toilets she is globally renowned on that subject. It is not a peripheral issue, it is a matter for planning authorities, and I think that Alison's amendment would fill, I was going to say, plug a gap. We are going into too many puntyr, but I think that if the minister takes a look at that, you do not need to take our words for it. Clara Greed is the woman you need to listen to. The minister can make up his own mind how helpful that suggestion was. I now ask Andy Wightman to wind up on amendment 86. Thank you very much, convener. I will keep this quite brief. I think that the debate around amendments 161 and 162 crystallised some of the issues here. The minister said that he disagrees that local development plans are the place, and I think that it was Pauline Neill who said, if they are not the place, where is the place? Local development plans are an opportunity, and they are the place that planning authorities set out their views on the spatial allocation of land and development in their area. By placing a duty on them to include a statement—a statement may be a sentence, a statement may be 10 pages—about the provision of public conveniences and water refill points. That could, for example, contain a statement to the effect that all new development of a certain type shall include or shall consider including the provision of public conveniences and water refill points, particularly, for example, developments that create new public spaces or developments that take the place of older developments that give us the opportunity to upgrade. That is the place for planning authorities to express a view to make a statement as to their view as to how we could increase the availability of public conveniences and water refill points. Of course, it is not about implementation, but it can contain a statement that would be helpful to guide developers and the owners of land in knowing that, in bringing forward certain kinds of development, there will be an expectation at these things to be done. I am happy to give that. I think that one of the things about the statement is that there will be an expectation from folk out there that this statement will automatically lead to this, that and the other. That is not what this does at all. Again, I would refer back to an amendment that we are going to deal with at a later point, in which Mr Balfour sets out clearly, in an amendment, how to bring forward changing places, toilets and bringing them into play. I am willing to have further discussions with Ms Johnson on the issue, but I do not think that having a statement in the local development plan is necessarily the way to deal with it. It certainly would not provide the solution that many folk out there would like to see. I thank the minister for the intervention. If the public expects this statement to deliver the kind of changes that some of them may regard, then that expectation is misplaced. That does not mean to say that it should not be contained in a statement. A statement provides an opportunity for people to take a considered view as to whether, indeed, there is anything that the planning system could do to improve the provision of those two things. It may well take the view that there is nothing that it can do, and the statement will be made to that effect. Of course, it is not a solution if a local authority is closing all their public conveniences. It is still open to them to have a planning statement that says that we need them, and those are the kind of circumstances in which they could be provided. I fundamentally disagree. That is why I think that 1612 crystallised a lot of the debates that we are having. For example, Pauline Neill's amendment 222, Jeremy Balfour's amendment 552, does our illustrations of the extent to which there is a wide range of interest in Parliament on a number of topics that we feel should be given greater focus and greater tension in local development plans. I agree with the minister when he says that there will be overlap and duplication. I absolutely agree with that. It is very difficult, I have to say, following the minister's statement about which amendments he deems useful to support and not support to perhaps eliminate all that overlap and duplication here at stage 2. There will be duplication and overlap, and I, as a member of this committee and I hope other members would agree, will have an obligation to make sure that this bill makes sense. It is patently clear that where there are overlaps and duplications, there is clear political will to improve the way in which local development plans make statements and take views on matters to do with older people or water refill points. Before stage 2, we all make the effort to make sure that those duplications are taken away and that the statements are clear, concise and proportionate. I personally would support that. As I said, I hope that other members would as well. I hope that that gives the minister some comfort that some of the things that are being proposed are not the final article but our intentions to improve the planning bill but that further work needs to be done. Monica Lennon, to wind up in amendment 86A. I do not think that I really get much more to add to that. In terms of the need to embed equality and tell our planning assessments, I think that I have made that point extensively. I know that we do not have a consensus yet, but I will keep working on that. Okay, thank you. Can I ask you how you are going to press or withdraw? I am going to press. Thank you. In that case, the question is that amendment 86A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour? Those against? The amendment falls. Andy Wightman to press or withdraw amendment 86A. Yes, I am pressing that. Yeah, I was going to ask Annabelle if she wanted to do it for you there. That is just who you are, Annabelle. The question is that amendment 86A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? And those opposed? And therefore the amendment falls. I call amendment 107, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 86. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. Cute. The question is that amendment 107A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Those opposed? Four, three, in favour? The amendment is agreed. Call amendment 172, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 86. Kenneth Gibson to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is therefore agreed. Five, two. Yeah. Okay. I call amendment 34, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 86. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 161, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 86. Alison Johnstone to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 161 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? And those opposed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 162, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 86. Alison Johnstone to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? And those opposed? The amendment 162 is agreed to. Yeah. Okay. I call amendment 173, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 86. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 222, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 86. Pauline McNeill to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 222 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Yes. Those in favour? And those opposed? The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 223, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 86. Moved. Pauline jumping the gun there, thank you very much. The question is that amendment 223 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? And those opposed? The amendment is ever agreed to. Okay. I call amendment 163, in the name of John Finnie, already debated with amendment 86. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Not moved on behalf of John Finnie. Thank you Andy. The question is that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, the amendment is ever agreed to. I call amendment 35, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 86. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No. Okay, those in favour of amendment 35? No. Sorry. Yeah, I know, you were used to that. And those opposed? That's sort of 511, right? Right, that's probably a good idea. I call amendment 52, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 86. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Those opposed? Okay, the amendment is ever agreed to. I call amendment 174, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 86. Kenneth Gibson to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is ever agreed. I call amendment 73, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 86. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The amendment is ever agreed to. 570. I call amendment 82, in the name of Clare Baker, already debated with amendment 86. Rhoda Grant to move on behalf of Clare Baker or not? Yes, moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The amendment is ever agreed. I call amendment 190, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 86. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 190 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The amendment is ever agreed. I call amendment 36, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 86. Graham Simpson to move or not move? y manfa. Mae amser yn ddisgrifatig gynllud yn rhan nesaf blynedd. Rwy'n ddweud i Halla Grifent 224 i gael y rhoda grant diwedd i Llywodraethol? Mae'n ddau ddysgogol achod. Rwy'n ddysgogol achod, allei i Halla Grifent 224 i chi ddysgogol. Rwy'n ddau ddysgogol achod, allan gan gan ImME86. Rwy'n ddysgogol achod, allan gan symeledd yn rhan rhan rhan, mae'n ddysgogol achod oedd. Rwy'n ddysgogol achod, allan gan symeledd, Ac mae hyn yn cael ei ddweud o gynhau? Mae gweld y cwrdd, 4-3. Mae ydych yn cwrdd, 37, yn y gynhyrchu ysbygfa Grym Siwn, wedi bod yn dechrau ar amgylcheddol am y gynhyrchu 86. Grym Siwn yn cwrdd o gynhyrchu? Mae'r ddweud. Mae'r ddweud o, 37, yn cwrdd, mae'n cwrdd, Cymru? Mae'r ddweud o, 34? Mae'r ddweud o, 41. Mae'r ddweud o, 40? Mae'r ddweud. Mae'r ddweud o, 44? Mae'r ddweud o, 45. 54 yn y name of Alexander Stewart, already debated with amendment 86. Alexander Stewart, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. I call amendment 54A in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 86. Moved. Another gun jumper. Thank you. The question is that amendment 54A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Alexander Stewart to presser with rule 54. Press? Press. Thank you. The question is that amendment 54A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 108 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 86. Monica, to move or not? Moved. The question is that amendment 108A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. But the amendment 104 agreed to. I call amendment 109 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 86. Monica Lennon to move. Moved. Rydw i dde January 109 gингent yn mynd i hyn i'r safetyad Se payoff Cy recon I-199 ymgyrch Rydw i gion I-199 Y cwestiynau amgylchedd 191 yn y ffordd Alastair Allyn yn ymgylchedd ymgylchedd 86 ymgylchedd 117 yn y ffordd ymgylchedd Ymgylchedd today's meeting, we will continue stage 2 consideration of the bill next week. Any amendments up to the end of part 3 of the bill should be lodged with the clerks by noon tomorrow. That concludes the public part of today's meeting. Thank you very much.