It is a debate on motion 12421 in the name of Kevin Stewart and I now call on Kevin Stewart to speak to and move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to be opening this stage 1 debate on the planning Scotland bill. The bill sets out the future structure of our planning system, a new approach to making plans and the decisions about how Scotland's places will develop and grow through greater collaboration between decision makers a'r ddechrau'r ddifusioadau ei gŷch. Mae cwblwch gweithredu i grant i rhai prosgram o rhoi i gweithio i ddylchon i gyffredinol a'r gyflawni'r cystafol. Felly, rhai prosgram efo'r gweld, yn ddifusio'r gweld, yn ddifusio'r gweld i gweithredu o gweithredu i gwneud dros eu lliwethaf, yn eich gweld i gynyddiadau i gweithredu i gweithredu ac o bwyllwch gŷnaborol ac yn FfF4, cychwyn ddau ddefnyddion cywethaf i dde某u gŷnaborol o'r parlyg. A thyrnau â'r proses Inclusif yn ddim yn ymddineb, oedd yr urgymgyn gynnig yn 2015, ac oedd gŷnaborol o'r panelio ar gyfnodg yng Nghymru. Fy visi gynhyrchu ar symfr i fynd o gwyfnidigol gyflym â'r fyddiolio, hollu'r bydd, pob oedd. Saedd gan ddurwg panel ateblo sut komfiant ar hyn, cydyddodd nhw'r cyffredin gyweithio rhan o fynd i'r cwylwfydd, i ddrexio i'r difrif i'r mwyaf. Rhaid i'r dechrau i fynd i'r cyddiweddau iawn wrth hyn i'r cyffredinol i'r rhai wrth y ffaserdwyr. Yr rhai'r prifwsau i'r rhai'r rhai ffaserdwyr yn y diolch. Panfern define o that. The review has been highly collaborative from the outset being clear about what needs to happen before any decisions are made about how it will happen, and that is entirely reflective of how I see our planning system itself needing to evolve and operate. Starting with good-quality collaboration truly involving stakeholders at the very early stages. I welcome the very comprehensive report of the local government and communities committee and their wide engagement with planning stakeholders, including communities across Scotland, in scrutinising the principles and provisions of the bill. I am pleased that the committee has agreed that this bill can improve the planning process in Scotland and also with its recommendation that the Parliament agrees the general principles of the bill. The Scottish Government has already responded in some detail to the issues and recommendations that were made by the committee. I would like to now set out our thoughts on some of the matters that were raised in the committee's report. There has been some debate in the committee evidence sessions about introducing a statutory purpose for planning and, if so, what that should look like and what matters should be included. I have listened carefully to that debate and will continue to reflect on it, Presiding Officer. I have no concerns in principle to bring in greater clarity about what planning does. Indeed, there could be some real benefits in guiding those who both operate and engage in the system. However, we have to keep in view how the system operates in practice and taking that into account. I believe that the purpose of planning should be set out in national policy and not necessarily in statute. The national planning framework has been, since its first iteration, an expression of Government policy. Government now and in the future must be able to develop and implement their policies and strategies. The committee will take intervention from Mr Cole-Hamilton. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way on that point. With regard to the national planning framework, does he share the concerns of many local councillors, both in my party and indeed in his own party across Scotland, who see that the iteration of the NPF within the confines of the bill amount to centralisation on an unprecedented scale, removing that local autonomy and accountability? I agree completely and utterly with that. During the national planning framework 3, there was immense scrutiny by the Parliament, including five committees, if I remember rightly. That was also scrutinised by people of the length and breadth of Scotland who fed their views into the committees of the Parliament. I do not believe in one little bit that this is centralisation. The committee has heard that the Scottish Government has a good track record of taking into account Parliament's view and finalising the NPF. As I have already stated, many of you will recall that Parliament was fully involved in MPF 3, the lead committee took evidence and four other committees heard evidence and produced reports. Work on the next national planning framework, which will progress after the bill, will be highly collaborative and engage fully with Parliament. It is important, for example, that Parliament can debate the kind of national development that Scotland needs from a very early stage. I maintain that each NPF should be adopted by the Scottish Government of the time. It is a Government strategy, not a bill. I do not agree that the Scottish Parliament should use a legislative process to amend and approve it. The bill also seeks to remove strategic development plans from the system, but I have always been clear that there would remain a strong and continuing role for strategic planning in Scotland, both through the national planning framework and regional partnership working across the country. Strategic development planning in Scotland has had challenges as well as successes, and we need the system to change so that planning can better respond to the world that we live in. I do understand the concerns that have been raised by some about political support and resources being available for strategic planning. We will look at bringing forward an amendment at stage 2 that would introduce a clearer duty for planning authorities to work together on strategic planning. I still want to ensure that we avoid being too prescriptive about that to ensure that we allow for different approaches that reflect local circumstances. I will give way very briefly to Mr Rumble. Having looked through the bill and all the parts of it, could he direct me to any part of the bill that does not give him more and greater powers? I will point out a number of those as I move through my speech here today. I am doing this methodically, and we will come to all the bits of the bill. I welcome the committee's agreement on moving local development planning to a 10-year cycle and to the alignment with community planning to provide a more coherent vision for communities. That is key to our commitment to effective front loading of the planning system, linking community needs and aspirations into development planning. Local place plans are another important element in this. Community influence in those areas is vital. That will provide a statutory role for communities in shaping the future development and is a golden opportunity to ensure that planning connects with wider efforts to empower communities the length and breadth of Scotland. I see the bill's provisions for simplified development zones as a useful tool to promote leadership in delivering good development and quality place making and to incentivise investment in priority areas. I do not agree with the committee's suggestion that they should only be brought forward if included in the statutory development plans. I think that the proposal has been wrongly perceived as a means to bypass proper planning scrutiny, and that is simply not the case. There has been some evidence presented to the committees around the name and branding of SDZs. I agree that the branding is important to stress the positive purpose and the opportunities that they bring, and that they are not simply a rerun of the simplified planning zones that they will replace. Those zones are not about deregulation. I thank the minister. He mentioned simplified planning zones of which there has only ever been two in Scotland. Are you able to say why that is the case and why you think that SDZs would be a more fruitful option? I will tell you why I think that SDZs will be a more fruitful option. I believe that they can empower planning to deliver great places. I will bring forward amendments to rename those as master plan consent areas to better reflect the positive role and the role of communities in their development. There has been, of course, some substantial evidence and debate about rights of appeal in the planning system. The issue has been well debated throughout the review of planning and, indeed, in previous legislation. I remain committed to delivering on the independent panel's recommendation of a planning system that fosters collaboration rather than conflict. It is clear that people sometimes feel frustrated by the planning system, and that is why the bill seeks to ensure members of our communities can have greater and earlier influence on how their areas will develop. I have made the Scottish Government's position on appeals very clear and I agree entirely with the views of the independent panel. Stronger engagement at the outset will be much more constructive than adding adversarial appeals at the end. There is already too much conflict and mistrust in the system. A third party or equal right of appeal can only add to that, and that would run entirely counter to the positive collaboration pursued through the bill. I am also certain that we should not do anything that could restrict the potential for future investment in Scotland by removing or limiting applicants' rights to appeal. Our current planning appeal system has supported the delivery of development of the homes and the jobs and the facilities that our communities need. Each decision is carefully considered. Many developments only exist because they were approved on appeal, and limiting appeal rights would add further complexity and frustration to the system. If the question of who has the right to appeal or what circumstances is not very clear. For example, conformity with the development plan is not always black and white, often requiring judgment on a case-by-case basis. There is a great deal of consensus on the outcomes that we are seeking, but it is also inevitable with planning that there will be different views on how the system should work. Planning needs to work for all of us, and the changes that we introduce to the system also need to work for all. I am sure that members will agree that we will have to see a course through all those different views to arrive at a new, coherent and streamlined framework for planning, which is fair and inclusive and works for Scotland. I am particularly looking forward to hearing more views from around the chamber. I will listen carefully and respond to matters raised, and I will contemplate what further amendments might be appropriate to bring forward at stage 2 should the Parliament choose to proceed. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the planning Scotland Bill. I should point out that there is plenty of time in hand this afternoon for interventions and interruptions. For all members, I call on Bob Dorris to speak to the motion on behalf of the local government and communities committee. I should really have had my papers up and ready, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate that is going to be on the local government and communities committee, as the lead committee reported its views on 17 May. At 103 pages long, I will forgive members for not having to suggest all of our reports. Akely, I will not be able to do justice to all of our recommendations in this speech, so I will focus on a few key recommendations that provide the flavour of our thinking. I want to begin by thanking all those who helped us to reach our recommendations and conclusions. We had a tremendous response with over 300 substantive written views, as well as online comments, lively discussions in Sky, Motherwell in Aberdeen and Stirling, and thoughtful contributions at committee meetings. I also thank those young people who responded to our survey. Students from Galashie was an academy who spoke with us and those we met in Linlithgow. I am sure that we agree that that was an extensive engagement strategy on behalf of the committee. However, I also thank fellow committee members and the clerking team for their hard work, Cluget Approach and Good Humour during our approach to this stage 1 report. Turning to the bill, the bill is intended to improve the system of development planning, give people a greater say in the future of their places, and support the delivery of planning developments. Our role was to examine whether it can deliver on that ambition. Our stage 1 report fittingly starts with what is the purpose of planning. Planning now serves a wide range of policy areas from social development right through to economic prosperity. As we heard in evidence, the bill should be clear about the public interest outcomes that planning is to deliver to provide greater clarity and clarity on the overarching policy ambitions of the planning system. We agreed, if the bill is to deliver on those ambitions, that we must set out on the bill a shared vision of what planning is there to achieve. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to consider further the best way to articulate the purpose of planning in legislation and to bring forward appropriate amendments at stage 2. In the part 1 of the bill proposes to strengthen the national planning framework by incorporating Scottish planning policy within it, the NPF then forms part of every local development plan. The bill proposes reviewing the NPF every 10 years and extends the time for parliamentary consideration to 90 days. Whilst in hand status of the NPF was welcomed by some, greater concern was expressed over it becoming part of local development plans. Some question whether that represents greater central control over local democracy and if the NPF is to become a stronger national vision which lasts for 10 years, whether the Parliament must be giving greater scrutiny to it and approval in relation to that role. We welcome the stronger role for the NPF, however we also recommend that that should be coupled with greater parliamentary scrutiny. We are therefore disappointed that the minister could not support the committee's call for a longer time for parliamentary scrutiny as proposed by the bill. 90 days does not provide a lot of parliamentary scrutiny bearing in mind that no one may have seen the actual draft NPF bill until it is submitted to Parliament for consideration. What would 90 days actually mean? It could mean four weeks to consult with wider stakeholders, one week to notify witnesses who would like them to come to our committee, three weeks to take evidence, two weeks to draft a report and maybe three weeks for our committee to deliberate in relation to what our thoughts are in relation to that report, and then, of course, a debate similar to that one. That is a lot to pack in in 90 days. Given that, in the fact that the national planning framework will only be decided upon once in a decade, I would urge the minister to reconsider his decision. The Government also did not accept her recommendation parliamentary amendment and approval for the final NPF, instead seeking to distinguish between legislation in the Parliament, open to amendment, and the NPF as a policy document. The Scottish Government said that amendments would add time and complexity to the process and that there is a track record of the Scottish Government amending the national planning framework as a result of that scrutiny. I think that myself and other committee members will listen with interested views to the wider Parliament in relation to what that parliamentary process for the national planning framework should be and I will follow that with interest here this afternoon. We do welcome, however, the Scottish Government's commitment to provide more supporting information, including impact assessments, once the draft national planning framework is laid before Parliament. The bill introduces local place plans intended to empower communities to become involved in designing their local places. We welcome the statutory role for communities and the minister's proposed amendment that planning authorities should take account of those plans. I certainly welcome the Scottish Government response that councils must be clear on how local place plans have been taken account of and for that to be considered an examination as appropriate. I also welcome further amendments to be considered to bring greater clarity. I say I as opposed to the committee because the committee is not the chance to consider the stage 1 response within the Scottish Government. However, I am absolutely sure that my fellow committee members will want much more clarity. The Scottish Government argues that the funding to develop local place plans was a wider responsibility outwith planning, spoke of signposting to funds, outlined what it would consider to be additional support and said that it would consider further how any additional support might be directed towards disadvantaged communities. Our committee will wish to follow very carefully how or to what extent that support is directed to disadvantaged communities. The committee report draws attention to the frustrations that communities feel in not having some equality of process in the system. I have listened to your speech so far. I wonder if you could outline what your view is to an equal right or a third party of appeal. What is the committee's conclusions? The paragraph is quite short and I was not too clear exactly what the committee was saying on that and what is your own view about that? I will not surprise you that I will make reference to the equal right of appeal when I get to that part within my speech. I will give the committee a view and I can certainly give my own thinkers, but I am here to speak on behalf of the committee, not for myself personally. That is an important principle within the stage 1 debate. We also remain persuaded that there is adequate funding and resource available to support communities. That is in relation to local place plans, particularly disadvantaged communities who stand to gain most from such plans. I urge the minister to consider specific funding to support local place plans rather than spreading existing community and public funding even more widely. We are moving on to simplified development zones, similar to the current simplified planning zones, but extending the types of permission automatically deemed for such a zone to a limit of 10 years. The committee believes that those could potentially make a positive contribution to place making or delivering infrastructure rather than a sea change in purposeful development. We describe them as a discretionary tool in the box. However, we recommended that only the Scottish Government and planning authorities should have a statutory right to bring forward simplified development zone proposals, although others could put forward any suggestions for proposals. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government is not able to support our committee's recommendation in this area. The Scottish Government's response seems to equate the matter to limiting the ability of an applicant to submit a planning application. That is not how I would view such matters. Any simplified development zone must surely have the strong buy-in of either the local authority or the national government and preferably both. I note that the Scottish Government believes that those provisions have not been widely understood in the minister's proposal for a name change from simplified development zones and a rebranding to better reflect their purpose. Our committee will await that further clarity with great interest, I am sure. One issue, not actually in the planning bill, was with regard to equal rights of appeal. Let me begin by making specific reference to developer right of appeal. The committee believes that, in a plan-led system, those appeals will only be allowed in certain circumstances. We are disappointed that the Scottish Government has not sought to progress that. However, I note that, in part 3 of the bill on development management, where our committee recommends limiting or deterring repeat applications, local authority to the power to decline to determine such applications in certain circumstances, we welcome the Scottish Government's agreed to reconsider that particular issue. In relation to equal rights of appeal more generally, the evidence that we heard largely replicated the long-standing debate on it. For example, would equal rights of appeal encourage more meaningful engagement with communities or would reduce early engagement? Would equal rights of appeal deter investment and slow development? Or is it an important element to rebalancing a plan-led system that arguments did not change? What is clear to us is that many communities felt frustrated by the current planning system. Our report does not support equal rights of appeal, but neither does it seek to close the door on it either. Rather, we cast it within a wider context that planning authorities and developers should engage earlier and more meaningfully with communities within the planning process. Our committee was not persuaded that the bill improved enough on previous attempts to front-load the planning system and was not convinced that proposals in the bill go far enough to address that. We want people to feel involved in the planning system at all stages, and we urge the Scottish Government to look at those issues before stage 2. Mike Rumbles If I may go back just to local place plans, it says that a community body may prepare a local place plan. Which community body? What about competing community bodies? What about the conflict inherent in such different communities? Does the committee look at that in detail? Bob Doris Yes, the community did look at that in some detail. Just because you have an interest does not mean that it is a wider community interest. Yes, there has to be much more clarity in relation to how you make sure that a community is truly representative. That is some of the clarity that we are hoping will be extended in relation to stage 2. That is a very reasonable point that Mr Rumbles makes. We have heard very similar points in relation to equal right of appeal in relation to making sure that certain interests are reflective of wider community interests. That is a common theme that runs right through the bill in relation to the matter. As I was saying, we want people to feel involved in the planning system at all stages and where is the Scottish Government to look at those issues before stage 2? Of course, the Scottish Government has now responded to our stage 1 report ahead of stage 2, including potential amendments. Of course, for each individual member, not just to our committee, but the wider Parliament to decide if that goes far enough or if it has to be pushed further, we may have to finish off by saying that the committee did not take a position on equal right of appeal because there was no committee position that would hang together on equal right of appeal. That is a very fair thing to say, but what we did hang together was that if equal right of appeal does not proceed, we did much more, much earlier, much more meaningful engagement with communities in co-production of what local development plans look like and capacity building to make sure that local police plans transform a granular approach to local development planning right across the country. I do not want to abuse my position as committee convener. I will certainly make sure that my voice is known in relation to equal right of appeal. I can say for Ms McNeill's purpose that I am not persuaded by equal right of appeal, but other committee members will have different views for their own strong and careful thought-out and respectful reasons. However, that is where we are as committee. It is about the early front-loading of community engagement and getting that right on that where we are absolutely clear. Can I finish off there, Presiding Officer, and thank the Parliament for listening to our consideration of our stage 1 report and looking forward to the debate ahead? Thank you very much. I now call on Graham Simpson to open for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Planning is an area that politicians tend to steer clear of on the basis that whatever you say, you're bound to upset somebody. My view has always been different on the basis that I have a thick skin. I've entered the process wherein, with views shaped by 10 years as a councillor, some of them bruising. One of the main conclusions that I've drawn from that time is that planning is often about who has power, who knows who has power and how that power is used. It's often about money, about who stands to gain from what, whereas it should be about making great places that people like, and it should be about involving people in the process of shaping the areas that it very often isn't. When I first read this bill and it's a difficult read, as the Law Society points out, I thought it's very centralising. My initial impression was right. There are enormous unprecedented 46 delegated powers, that's powers flowing to ministers, and that's why the committee that I convene, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, was absolutely right to make a series of recommendations that would put checks and balances in place, and Parliament should agree that that's necessary. It's a centralising bill. In fact, when I asked the minister to name a section of the bill where powers don't flow to him in committee, he couldn't do it. Let's look at some of the areas that are within this bill and Mr Simpson can tell me whether he thinks that they are centralising or not. More decisions being sent to local review bodies rather than elsewhere. Stronger alignment between spatial and community planning. Co-production of the national planning framework. More discretion for local authorities on fees. The introduction of local place plans. Are those centralising measures, would he say, or is that giving power back to the people? I'm afraid, as Mr Stewart will find out, there are section after section in this bill where powers flow to him. I smell a rat when I see ministers trying to grab more powers than they need. This bill is a power grab. Too often planning is about vested interests. Too often you see decisions that leave a nasty smell when you think, there's something not right here. There could be for or against development when there's a lot of money at stake, sometimes funny things happen. That's why we wouldn't want to see a system where there is no right of appeal for anyone. We need checks and balances. Similarly, if a council is refusing to meet housing targets, it must be right that they can be challenged. What's the purpose of this bill? No one actually knows. If it's to deliver more housing, then there's nothing in it that would deliver that in any great numbers. If it's about protecting the environment, our green spaces, our precious wild land, or conserving what we have in buildings, then it's not obvious. It could be all those things, and we think that a purpose should be set out on the face of the bill, so we'll be tabling an amendment to that end. The Local Government and Communities Committee produced a report agreed by all members, which was, frankly, damning and widely praised. It contained important recommendations that we agree with. The first was on a purpose for planning, which I've mentioned, so I'll talk about some of the others. The national planning framework sets out ministers' land use strategy and would include Scottish planning policy. It's going to become a more powerful document than before. Local development plans signed off by the minister will have to align to NPF also signed off by the minister. You see, all roads lead to Edinburgh. It's all about power. The NPF becomes such a powerful document that the committee thinks that there should be a mechanism for Parliament to be able to amend it before agreeing to it. All parliamentarians should agree with that. In an almost entirely negative response to the committee's report, Kevin Stewart does not. It's all about power and he wants it all. If Mr Simpson had paid more attention to the bill, he would recognise that the national planning framework itself will have been prepared collaboratively and transparently and Parliament will have seen the draft that was previously consulted on before NPF becomes a proposed version and is submitted to Parliament. It will then have 90 days to look at that national planning framework document, which is 30 days more than it currently is. Those are changes and there are changes for the better. I was supposed to be an intervention and not a speech, but Mr Stewart is not prepared to allow Parliament to amend this much more powerful document than before. 90 days, as the convener of the committee has already said, is not long enough. We go on to strategic development plans. The committee heard no strong evidence that getting rid of these regional partnerships is necessary. In fact, as we've seen with city and growth deals, the way to deliver strong growth is through regional working. The committee said that things should be left as they are unless something more robust is suggested and nothing has been. The minister responded to us that we maintain that strategic planning matters across Scotland could be set out collectively in the national planning framework. That's the document that he doesn't want any of us to have a say over. What about local development plans? That's where a council sets out proposals for its area. Now, over 10 years and not five, they can be reviewed in between, so fair enough. Councils will have to show in an evidence report how they've engaged with communities, but it's far from clear exactly what they're meant to do. The Government says it will bring forward amendments to make things clear. We'll do likewise just in case. Local development plans will have to be approved by the minister. In its technical paper, the Government says that there could be some flexibility for plans to reflect local policy. That's good of them. Next, local place plans. Those sound like a good idea until you scratch the surface and the gloss comes off as quickly as a coat of paint with no primer. Communities can produce plans for their areas that councils should have regard to, meaning that they could have regard to it and then quickly disregard it. Even the alternative wording of must take account of is little better. The worry is that people could spend a lot of time and money producing plans for their area that go nowhere. That's why the committee said that the onus should be on councils to produce them in conjunction with communities. The Government… Yes. Mae Rumbles. Much of what the member is saying, and on the local place plans, the point I'm making is that, as a community body, a community body may prepare a local place plan, is this not a recipe for conflict, as there could be several different community bodies in any particular area, with producing different plans? Well, the convener has answered that point. We did take evidence on that, and that's why we think that the onus should be on councils initially to prepare these plans. But the Government calls this approach overly formalised. Overly formalised. Maybe because it would actually work. Now, there's a deeply worrying section on performance councillors and training in the bill. These are probably the most draconian of all the measures proposed. The Government wants to appoint a planning performance co-ordinator who would snitch on councils if they aren't up to scratch. Ministers could order councils to change their ways. What constitutes poor performance is not defined, and it clearly leaves the way open for the whole thing to become very political. For example, what if a council refuses to grant any more wind farms in its area? They may have good reason to do so, but the Government could define that as underperforming. It's dangerous. In any case, as we heard from COSLA, councils have been working closely with the Government voluntarily, and things have been getting better. The committee called for this section of the bill to be dropped, and we agree. Not surprisingly, the Government disagrees, but it's all about power. No, the Government also wants councillors to be compelled to do training and pass an exam before being allowed to take planning decisions. The minister is not prepared to do the same. He's not prepared to do the training and doesn't see the hypocrisy in this. The committee thinks that this rather balmy idea should be dropped, and we agree. The bill contains an enabling power to create an infrastructure levy, but the Government has no idea how it would work. It does not address the wider issue of funding infrastructure, which is one of the main barriers to development. It should. We'll bring forward ideas on land value capture, for example, and we're happy to work with other parties and the Government on this. Simplified development zones, which are apparently to be rebadged—we now learn as master plan consent areas—I think I'll be going back to the drawing board on that one—are a good idea and could speed things up. We do want to see an amendment, though, which says where they can't be set up. Presiding officer, there's little in this bill that we like. It pleases no one other than the Scottish Government. House builders say it doesn't deliver for them. Environmentalists say it doesn't deliver for them. Communities are unimpressed. It's centralising. It's all about the minister. Before I close, I should say something about appeals. I explained earlier why I think that they should exist. The committee was very clear that communities should be involved at all stages of planning and ask the Government to think again. The Government has instantly rejected that plea. The fact is that people feel that planning is something that's done to them and not with them. We need to change that. We should stop branding anyone who wants a greater say over what happens in their area as Nimbies. We'll bring forward ideas on how best to involve anyone in the process. We should vote against this bill at stage 1, but we have an opportunity to do something to rip this bill apart and produce a planning act that delivers. We'll back it at this stage. Moving forward, I extend an olive branch to the Government. Work with others and we can get a planning system that we can all be happy with. Planning should work for everyone. It should reject vested interests. We want a planning system that's for the people, that's with the people, a planning system for all, a planning system that's not a power grab that delivers a better Scotland for everyone. I prefer to call Monica Lennon to open for labour. Just to clarify, the Conservatives decided in advance if they could reduce their debate speakers and give some of the additional time to the opening speaker, which I agreed, hence the longer contribution from Mr Simpson. Everybody else has exactly the same time. However, having said that, there's plenty of time today to take intervention and interruptions, so feel free to take advantage of that. I call Monica Lennon to open for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer to my register of interest to advise the chamber. I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Although I am the vice-conviner of the local government and communities committee, I am speaking today on behalf of Scottish Labour. It would be remiss of me, however, not to begin by thanking my committee colleagues, the clerks and everyone who took part in our stage 1 evidence gathering. The committee's thoughtful and robust recommendations will help inform today's debate and also a thanks to everyone who sent us a briefing for the debate today. The creation of the planning system was born out of a vision for a healthier and more equal society. Without planning, there would be chaos in our communities. Our built and natural environment has benefited from planning, but sometimes decisions of the past have embedded inequalities into our communities. There is much to celebrate about planning, but there is room for improvement. When people used to ask me where I worked and I said that I was a planner, they immediately thought of the person who came round to inspect your neighbour's conservatory. Planning is often portrayed as bureaucratic and a bit dry, but planning is fundamental to improving every aspect of life—homes, jobs, health and wellbeing, transport and climate justice. I am very grateful to Monica Lennon for taking my intervention. She is right that planning is impacted by so many other areas, rather than just the built environment. Does she share my concern that the bill is happening in isolation from the review of transport and the forthcoming legislation that will come out of it? Monica Lennon. I think that she is right on the broader point that we cannot look at planning, policy and planning strategies in isolation. That is something that we have tried to press upon during our evidence sessions. Planning determines our connections to the wider world. Where we live can determine how happy we are, how much we earn and how long we might live. Planning can also be quite exciting. We were impressed by some of the representations that we received. It was not just about trying to stop things or contain development. It was about trying to celebrate the culture in our communities, agent of change, which people had not really heard of. How do we protect grassroots music venues, for example? I know that the minister has made some commitments on that front, which I know will please the music venues trust and others. Those are the things that we could embed into the face of the bill, to give people certainty and to make sure that we protect our most important assets. Lewis MacDonald. I am very grateful to Monica Lennon. I have seen the minister's response to the committee's recommendation. Does she share my disappointment that the minister has not yet been persuaded of the case for including the agent of change principle in legislation and in the bill? The point that was put to the committee by the music venues trust being that guidance and policy, while welcome, are not binding in a court of law in the way that statutory provision is. Monica Lennon. I agree with Lewis MacDonald on that point. From reading about what is going to happen with the English planning system, I think that people are more persuaded to put it into the legislation. I think that there is still time for the minister to look at that and share the article that we looked at in the committee. What we need to get better at in terms of planning is explaining why we plan and who we are planning for. During the committee scrutiny of the bill, it troubled me greatly that many people say that they feel disconnected from the decisions that affect them. Those are planning decisions that have an impact not just for the days ahead but for the long-term future. The planning bill falls on from the planning Scotland Act 2006, which amended the 1997 act. We were promised planning modernisation. The most striking feature of the system in recent years, however, is that investment in planning has fallen off a cliff. RTPI Scotland described that as a crisis of resourcing. Planning authorities have had to act almost a quarter of their staff since 2009. Less than half a per cent of local authority budget spend is on planning. Other specialist roles that support planners in their work, such as environmental health officers, landscape architects, roads engineers and many more, have also been cut. Doing planning on the cheap is not in anyone's interest. Despite the positive rhetoric from the Scottish Government, I have been disappointed by the content of the bill as it currently stands. A lack of clear purpose, as we have heard, has led to content in the bill, which is often problematic and at times contradictory. For example, removing strategic development planning whilst it has a desire for that to continue voluntarily, simplifying local development plans whilst removing statutory supplementary guidance, and essentialising tendency throughout when ministers will have more power, for example over the designation of simplified development zones, and we have had half-baked plans for an infrastructure levy. I will take the intervention. I will give way on some of those points, because simplified development zones do not give local authorities powers to establish simplified development zones. I think that in a number of those areas in terms of resourcing, while I would like to see local authorities invest in their planning and building standards departments, as Glasgow has done in its recent budgets, not all local authorities have chosen to do so with the additional fee money. Does Ms Lennon believe that they should ring fence those funds, or does she think that local authorities should have the independence of choosing where they spend the money that they raise? Monica Lennon. I think that what local government needs is enough money to provide core services for communities, and the recent briefing that came out from SPICE last week shows that under this government, austerity has quadrupled to local government. There is an argument for full-cost recovery. At the moment, for a long time, developers have said that they are willing to pay more for a service, but they want standards to increase. However, what we have seen in 2009 is not just a lack of money in planning authorities, but when you lose a quarter of your staff, that is an awful lot of experience, skills and knowledge about the community that goes about that. It is really hard to replace that overnight, so it is deeply, deeply concerned and does not stand in any provisions in the bill. Of course. In terms of full-cost recovery, and while Ms Lennon is right to say folk that they are willing to pay for the system, they also want to see performance rise in authorities. That is not just about timescales. Does she think that we should have the performance sections in the bill that we have, which many communities and other stakeholder groups across Scotland want to see in the bill? Monica Lennon. Everyone wants a high-performing planning system. What the bill does not do is widen out the definition of performance. It is not just about making decisions quickly and cracking on with things. It is making sure that we make the right decisions and get the right quality of development for our communities. I wish that we had more time, and I could respond more fully on that point. You have more time? Just keep going, I will let you know when you have run out. I will not live it halfway through. I will move on, because I think that the points are related. I think that the planners who work in the public sector, like us, work very hard. Unison, for example, in its written evidence, said that delays in the system can be explained by severe cuts to planning budgets. It talked about staff being under severe pressure and high stress, so it does not really paint a good picture. It repeats the point about needing resources, not simply about needing reorganisation. On the bill, I think that Graham Simpson mentioned this, but the Law Society of Scotland has said that the bill is very difficult to follow, and that does not really sit well with an approach that is about trying to make planning more inclusive and easier for people to engage with. Fundamentally, one of the most obvious flaws of the legislation is that it lacks definition. On a most basic level, how can we reform the system to improve it if there is no clear stated purpose for planning to work from? Having a stated position or purpose for planning is supported by a wide range of stakeholders, and after listening carefully to the evidence, the committee recommended that a purpose be included on the face of the bill. As Professor Clif Hague explained in his oral evidence to the committee, what is the alternative to having a purpose? There are presumably two possibilities. One is that there is no purpose, in which case why are we doing it. The other is that there is a purpose, but we are not prepared to say what it is, and that is not a great piece of administration. The Scottish Government has, I believe, on Friday responded positively to its recommendation, and I think that many of us look forward to progressing discussions on a purpose for the planning system at stage 2. We believe that the approach that we take to planning should be a rights-based one that acts to manage land use in the long-term public interest. The committee reflected that, and I agree that the purpose of planning should reflect Scotland's international obligations, including the UN's sustainable development goals. The planning system is central to the delivery of our commitments on human rights and achieving a fairer society. The principle of equality should be embedded throughout the planning process, so it is deeply disappointing that we heard evidence from Engender that the equality's impact assessment for the bill was exceptionally bad on gender—that is not a good report card. On appeals, although the bill is silent on the issue of appeals, the evidence that we heard confirmed to the committee that the status quo is clearly not working for our communities. Previous attempts to frontload the system and improve community engagement at the beginning of the process have not been successful, so I agree that we need to strengthen the plan-led system, but to do that I also believe that we have to equalise appeal rights. That would afford communities a limited right of appeal for situations where an application is not in accordance with the development plan, but gets approved anyway, whereas at the same time setting a threshold on the appeal rights of applicants where development, which is in the plan, ends up getting refused because we do not believe that that is fair. That would also deter speculative applications and allow resources to focus all minds on proposals that are consistent with the development plan. In a strong plan-led system, where a collaborative culture is valued, there should be a limited need for appeals. We should be getting the right decisions first time around, and planners are more than capable ministers of assessing whether something is in contravention with the plan or not, and they used to have to report to Government. Can you begin to wind up, please? I have given you a lot of time. On the national planning framework, we believe that any measures for that should go hand in hand with increased parliamentary scrutiny. In conclusion, the bill has in many ways been a missed opportunity. At this stage, Scottish Labour will support the general principles, but we are clear that the bill will require significant amendments at stage 2 to make it fit for purpose. We will engage constructively. We want to see a planning system that works for the many and not the few. I will be generous with you as well, Mr Wightman. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like Monica Lennon, I thank fellow committee members, clerks and the many individuals and organisations who submitted oral and written evidence to the committee and provided briefings for today's debate. As Graham Simpson pointed out and the minister himself in evidence to the committee, planning is a topic that too frequently is regarded as dull, technical and bureaucratic. That is perhaps because the process is complex and the legislation even more so. The bill that we have before us today amends the 1997 act. As it stands, it is virtually impossible for the public to understand what it means. I understand and agree that the minister is anxious that the public is more engaged in the planning system, particularly in the process of making plans, and I agree with him. Whether the bill will achieve that is an open question. Indeed, I find it hard to discern with any clarity what the general principles of the bill even are. I believe that we need to shift the focus of Scottish planning towards a system that has the plan placed more firmly at the centre of the process, reducing discretion to have regard to other material considerations, making compliance with the plan the determinant of who, if anyone, is allowed an appeal on the merits of a decision, empowering communities and planning authorities to create broadly supported plans, capturing for public benefit the windfall gains to landowners and strengthening professional input to the process by properly resourcing the planning system. I want to reflect briefly on some of the key elements of the bill. The first is the purpose of planning, which has already been mentioned. I am pleased that there is broad agreement that the bill should, for the first time since 1947, enshrine and statute the purpose of planning. I know that the minister is a big fan of the 1952 Aberdeen City plan. Tom Johnson, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote the forward to that plan and I am open by observing that and I quote, The alternative to planning is no planning, it is chaos and waste. Indeed. The purpose of planning is, at the very least, to prevent chaos and waste, but is more positively to promote the allocation of land in the public interest for the pop common good. I had no intention of mentioning the Aberdeen local plan of 1952 today, but Mr Wightman has enticed me into it. In that very same forward and a paraphrase here, Mr Johnson also said that this will be a great plan if delivered and the only thing that will stop delivery is the red weevils of bureaucracy. Would he agree that this bill leads to simplification, gets rid of some of the red weevils of bureaucracy and makes it easier for folk to understand? Mr Wightman, the red weevils of bureaucracy are indeed a problem in the planning system. I am not convinced that the bill will deal with that, but we can have an ongoing discussion about the red weevils and other insects as we proceed. The bill also makes significant changes to the national planning framework, as others have indicated to incorporate Scottish planning policy into the national planning framework. It also incorporates the national planning framework together with the local development into the development plan for a planning authority area. That is a very significant change. The committee believes that, given its enhanced status, the national planning framework should be subject to parliamentary approval to mirror the democratic approval given to local development plans. It is disappointing to see that the minister disagrees, arguing that the national planning framework is not legislation, it is policy. Indeed, I think that he said in his opening remarks that the national planning framework is an expression of government policy. However, if that is true, if it is merely an expression of policy, then it should not form part of the development plan, because the development plan is about plans. Elsewhere, strategic development plans are to be abolished. Again, the committee disagrees unless more robust alternative is created, and in particular it is inappropriate to incorporate strategic planning within a national planning framework, because, in my view, that undermines the role of existing planning authorities. Local place plans are another element of the bill that causes concern, and, principally, they are a great idea. However, without an enhanced status within development planning, they risk raising expectations and frustrating communities. Over the past few decades, the private developer has become the prime mover in the planning process, rather than the public authority. As a result, public trust has been eroded and powerful private interests and money have corrupted the public interest embodied in the original 1947 act. The bill is an opportunity to turn things around. One of the problems is that British planning is a highly permissive system, with a wide latitude to depart from the plan where material considerations can be invoked. As Dr Andy Inge from planning democracy said in oral evidence, the planning system is adversarial because of the discretion that exists at the end of the process, which by and large means that speculative development applications are put forward and people react to them. As long as applicants can appeal decisions that they do not like, confidence in a plan-led system is undermined. An ambition to up-front planning has to be matched by the integrity of the plan. In such a scenario, no appeal should be allowed at all and a properly considered determination should stand as a final word. That is why, in my view, the bill must be amended to reform the current appeal system. As the architect Malcolm Fraser noted in oral evidence, the simple solution is to allow nobody to appeal. The continuing resistance of ministers to acknowledge his question is dispiriting. Six minutes is not sufficient to set out Greens' views on the bill. Suffice to say, there is work to be done. That is why, for example, I have launched a consultation on reinstating provisions to allow public authorities to quiet land at existing use value. We will be launching further consultations on improving tree protection, reducing ministerial discretion, by putting material considerations and ministerial calling powers on a new statutory footing. Many people submitted evidence to Parliament arguing that the bill should be bold and transformative. The bill fails to deliver any of those aspirations. It concentrates further power in the hands of ministers, pays lip service to genuine public engagement and removes valuable strategic planning powers. Greens believe that planning can and must be a force for good for delivering high-quality environments, reducing inequalities and promoting the public interest in use in land. To that end, substantial amendment is required. If that was the final bill, we would be voting against it tonight, but it can be improved, however, and we will therefore be voting to keep it in play. I remind members that I can be a bit generous with time that even applies to you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I am truly honoured, Deputy Presiding Officer, with that latitude. Thank you very much. Obviously, I do not sit on the local government and communities committee, but I am sited on the bill. I have some thanks to my Opposition counterparts who have walked me through the earlier foothills of the process. I also extend thanks to the many Lib Dem council groups who have offered opinions in our consultation about what to do on the bill. However, I think that we shall stand alone tonight in our opposition to the fundamental principles behind the legislation. That is because we, as Liberals, could never endorse or accept a precept that suggests that ministers or civil servants in Edinburgh, who have charge of a much strengthened national planning framework, are better placed to understand the needs and aspirations of our local communities than our elected councillors. It relegates local authorities to consultees in Maine and to the grand designs and unfettered powers of the minister, given the powers that will be conferred to them as a result of the legislation. We are often told in this place that we get a piece of a planning legislation, a planning bill, every 10 years. The bill is something of a disappointment. We have heard from very eloquent speeches across the chamber of the deficiencies that can be found in its pages. It is a bill born of a review, and I make no judgment on the qualities of the people who undertook that review, but it was established with no real objectives. It had no planners amongst its panel, and it had very ambitious timetails, which were forced to leave out a critical analysis of key issues that should have affected it. The profile of the housing market, as it has been in Scotland since 2008, is the significant infrastructure problems that we see in developments that have already been given consent, particularly around transport. It is on transport that I want to rest. Given that we have an on-going transport review and legislation that will ultimately come from it, I find it astonishing that there should be such a profound dislocation between that process and this process. In my constituency of Edinburgh, Westin, we have suffered a proliferation of housing development by increment over the last 20 years, which fails to recognise that the developments are a stride 2 of the most polluted arterial routes into Edinburgh and most congested at that. However, it is in the centralisation of the process, in the national planning framework that we have the most problem. There is a lack of clarity around that, but I am grateful to the minister for giving some clarity to the NPF, but it is not the clarity that I was looking for. He talks about co-production, but it seems that yes, Parliament will be showing the national planning framework, given 90 days to consider it, but we will have no power whatsoever to amend it. That is an unfettered level of power that we cannot accept and relegates local authorities and their local development plans as delivery tools to that end. It fundamentally undermines autonomy and accountability. I perhaps understand that the SNP administration would like to allow its own administration to lead in Edinburgh to duck the blame for the monstrous betrayal of trust in places such as South Queensferry, where there is a South Scottsden development, and the Camero estate, which is under planning zone for planning right now, has no heed for the impact that that will have on doctors' surgeries and roads infrastructure, and they have betrayed the people who have sent them to that council administration. They will say, do not blame us, blame the civil service, blame the Scottish ministers. We are just delivering their plans. I am not having it, Presiding Officer. I want to address some of the specifics of the bill. Although we will oppose the bill at first principles, we will attempt to salvage it by amendment at stage 2 and stage 3. I will give way to Bob Doris. You are objecting to the bill at first principles in relation to centralisation. Does that mean, for example, that the Liberal Democrats would scrap all the rights of ministers to call anything and ever? That would be centralisation as well, in other words, would it not? We have profound concerns at the centralisation of the delegated powers that the bill confers on Scottish ministers. My colleague Mike Rumbles has been uttering the name George Orwell throughout the debate this afternoon, and he is not far wrong. We will attempt to salvage this dogs breakfast of a bill at stage 2. We are very concerned with things like the removal of the main issues report stage, which is seen by all stakeholders as a transparent way of consulting, because there is a pervasive view, Presiding Officer, that once a draft plan has prepared, it is set in stone. I will give way to the minister. I wonder how many of his constituents have approached Mr Cole Hamilton, who have said that things like the main issues report is one of the most confusing things that puts them off getting involved in planning. That is about simplification to get more people involved at all stages, including the formulation of local development plans. Why would he want to keep something that puts many folk off getting involved in the planning process? Mr Cole Hamilton is quite grateful to the minister for that intervention, but if his definition of simplification is to delete something entirely when it is seen by many as an important toehold in the planning landscape, we have a very profound difference of opinion. I also agree with many speakers, particularly Mike Rumbles, who has interviewed several times in the debate about his concerns about local place plans. They are an attractive thing, but it is not clear how they will interface with local development planning. Indeed, if there is a conflict between certain community groups, one community group and another community group who develop local place plans for the same area to conflicting ends, it is unclear how those will be carried forward. It needs also to be clear how local development planning infrastructure and the newly enhanced national planning framework can be democratically updated. It is not fair just to talk about co-production if there is only one person at the table for co-production who can influence its change. I also have some sympathy with removing an applicant's right of appeal, although we will watch that debate with interest as we go forward. I am also keen—I think that I am glad—very much to see John Muir trust in the gallery today that we do need some enhanced protections and designations for wildland areas in this bill. I also want to see something about section 75 of the original town and county planning act of 1997. All too many developers are quitting the field after developing huge, very profitable developments from which they take their money, only to welch on the deals that local authorities had thought they had made in terms of planning gain. I think that we need to introduce a bond system that toughens that up and gives local authorities teeth to get developers to deliver on their commitments. In conclusion, I am aware that we stand alone this afternoon in direct opposition to the principles of this bill. I have spoken of the unfettered power that it confers on ministers and the concerns that we have in that regard. It is the very antithesis of what we as Liberals stand for, that we believe that power is delivered best when it is closer to the people. We will work towards that and through the resulting stages of this bill. If this is a bill that happens every 10 years, it is a profound disappointment, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank you. I thank the clerks of the local government committee for all their work in helping to pull together our report ahead of today's stage 1 debate. I also thank fellow members for the collegiate way in which we work to put this report together, which has not perhaps been evident from all the speeches that we have heard this afternoon thus far. The planning system is not often something that people consider until it is on their doorstep. There is an application in to build houses across the road. Suddenly, there is a community uproar. However, the purpose of planning is, of course, something far wider than that. Indeed, as Andy Wightman has alluded to previously, our committee report notes that the planning system is essential to delivering not only outputs such as high-quality environment, warming secure homes and national infrastructure, but also to helping to fulfil climate change obligations, sustainable development goals and wider human rights. Community engagement is therefore of paramount importance, but, to get community buy-in, you also need to change power and balances. I think that, in 2018, the year of young people, we have a real opportunity to facilitate behaviour change in the next generation to ensure a movement away from a reactive planning system. Nearly 60 per cent of the young people who responded to our online survey said that they would be very likely or likely to become involved in local place plans, with 78 per cent considering that there should be a duty on communities who draft local place plans to consult with young people. Back in March, Andy Wightman and I had the pleasure of meeting people from Gallashield's academy in Parliament to discuss today's legislation. Try using planning terminology with teenagers and you will soon recognise one of the main issues faced by the legislation, the use of plain English. Because you cannot talk about local development plans or local place plans to 15-year-olds without first explaining to them what you mean. When I said to the pupils, tell us about your school, what is it like, do you need a new one, why is that important, the response was immediate. It was certainly an important reminder to me in the use of terminology, but more than that, it should be a reminder to all of us about the importance of the planning system in giving voice to communities and to groups who often feel left out of that process, particularly given that 2018 is the year of young people. On that, I am particularly grateful to Chris Ross for the submission from Scottish Alliance's People and Places, which notes that recommendation 5 in their briefing engagement should be inclusive, in particular requiring the views of children and young people to be taken into account through the planning process. Children and young people will live longest with the decisions made today. The UK is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force in the UK in 1992. Article 12, the right to form a view and to be heard in matters that affect them, and article 31, the right to play and participate freely in cultural life underpin our obligation to enable children and young people to participate in the decision making processes that will affect all of us. We believe that children and young people's voices and their participation must be given meaningful waiting. As the minister told the committee in written correspondence earlier this year, it is not always the case that community groups represent the views of their community as a whole. As I know that the minister is aware, community councils are often represented by a certain demographic that can be exclusionary to the views of young people. I think that there is a real interest in the views from young people in terms of how they can be listened to more broadly. For example, in planning and designing their own schools, however, if we are to continually rely on the traditional routes of consultation via community councils, I do worry that their views will be lost. I think that there is an opportunity here to look wider at how consultation is conducted. I thank Ms Gilruth for giving way. I am glad that she mentioned Gallus Heals Academy, which is in her constituency, because it has been taking part in a wee project with Paz with a place standard. It is probably more in the know than many other young people in Scotland. One of the things that I am keen to see is much more use of digital technology, 3D visualisations and other things to play a part in the planning system. Does she think that that would encourage young people to get more involved? Jenny Gilruth. I thank the minister for that intervention. Yes, I do. In a former life, I was a teacher, so I think that any kind of new thinking outside the box to engage young people will be a positive in getting them engaged in the planning process. However, I would say that even in terms of speaking to those people from Gallus Heals Academy, it was quite clear that using the traditional planning terminology with teenagers did not resonate with them. I think that extends more widely in speaking to members of the public. The planning system is quite clunky. Andy Wightman alluded to that in his speech today. It is quite impenetrable in part, so I think that we need to think better at our language in terms of that wider community engagement. That brings me neatly to local place plans. As section 143 of the committee report notes, under the bill, a community council or other community body will have the power to produce a local place plan, a completed LPP can be submitted to the relevant planning authority, which must have regard to its contents. My concern, which is one that has been highlighted today, is the use of the words have regard to. There is a real danger that local communities could invest in preparing and submitting a local place plan only to have it ignored by the development plan. As Dr Andy Wightman mentioned, a risk of a weak status for local place plans in decision making is that communities and others can invest hundreds of hours and huge amounts of voluntary time and effort into producing local place plans only to find subsequent decisions that broadly disregard their provisions. There is, however, an equality argument to be made in the same context. Bob Doris touched on that in his contribution, where there is no active community council or community body. There is also a danger in certain communities that their views will not be listened to. I raised those concerns with the minister and marched in front of the committee, particularly in the context of the Edinburgh city region deal. The Edinburgh deal takes, in my constituency, some of the poorest parts of the country, but I remain in the dark as to what consultation the Fife council carried out with regard to how we were essentially included in that deal. There is a danger that poorer communities can be disadvantaged if they do not have the capacity to engage in that process. If we consider that the wider purpose of planning is to drive sustainable growth and even to facilitate human rights, it is important that communities all start on an equal footing. As noted in recommendation 190 of our report, as things stand, the proposals for LPPs run the risk of being disregarded or ineffective. The committee firmly believes that communities should be supported to help to develop plans for their areas. We suggest that councils at the start of the local development plan process should put out a call for people to help them to develop local place plans and to show how that has been done in the evidence report. In the minister's response to the committee's report, I was therefore delighted to see that the Government intends to ensure that planning authorities will have a legal requirement to take into account local place plans in all cases. Before summing up, I would also like to make mention of the submission to the committee received from Engender, which Monica Lennon touched upon, who highlighted concerns about the robustness of the equality's impact assessment, particularly with regard to Engender. Engender has argued that the consultation thus far is predicated on community impairment as opposed to targeting marginalised groups such as women. As Suzanne McIntosh in planning limited noted, the planning process is where the start of the story begins and engaging particularly women in the creation of place and understanding how we use those places to go some way to understanding this issue and creating a more balanced equal society. I understand that the EQIA is currently in the process of being updated and that Government officials have furthermore offered to meet Engender to discuss the issue further. Whether it is women or young people, it is clear that different groups face different problems in participating in our planning system. However, I am hopeful that the legislation will seek to challenge that and it will provide opportunities for greater engagement right from the outset. Whether that is through the work of organisations such as PASS and local schools, whether it is through local place plans that go wider than traditional community councils, or whether it is through meaningful engagement in the context of the local development plan, what is clear is that planning matters to everyone. With the legislation, we have an opportunity to move planning beyond its traditional parameters and to really make a difference to the places that people live in. I welcome the opportunity to participate this afternoon. Planning can be controversial. During my 18 years as a councillor, I witnessed how it can divide a community and cause conflict. However, there are some opportunities to improve the consultation and the process within the system. I am encouraged to see that, in the planning process that we have in front of us today, it gives us some limited ways forward to deal with the day-to-day basis within the bill. Future debates on that will give us the opportunity to work towards achieving some of those goals. However, there is still a long way to go. Many people have been disappointed by what is planned for the bill and ministers have to take cognises of that. One of the more positive aspects that the bill has and others have touched on this afternoon is the local place plans. The intention to give a statutory underpinning to communities that are developing their aspirations is a good thing. We acknowledge that, but we must ensure that the provision does not simply pay lip service to the communities and their ambitions, and that is a concern that we have raised. The concerns and the current widening of the bill that planning authorities must have regarding those plans are simply not strong enough. It needs to be tougher, and we want to ensure that communities feel that their evidence, and many of the people who came before the committee, told us that. I was very much delighted to hear the views of organisations and individuals who took time out to come and tell us of their concerns of the way that is going forward. Although the Scottish Government's commitment to amend the bill and ensure that authorities must take account of local place plans is welcome, we must ensure that the final bill does not allow authorities to simply pick and choose those plans and which are more appropriate, because that will give some real communities a possibility of disappointment if they have played time and gone forward into that process. I am really pleased that this is an area that you are focused on in relation to local place plans that are fundamental in relation to what taking account to actually means. Do you agree with me that it is vital that local authorities must be able to have a strong evidence base for how they have taken account of it and changed their local development plan, and if they have rejected some aspects of the local place plan, which is allowed, if there are strong, compelling, open and transparent reasons for it, that must also be evidence-based as well, if that is to mean anything? Just before you respond, Mr Stewart, you used the U word. I am beginning to lose hope, but we will keep trying. Does the member agree with you? I thank the member for the intervention. The member makes some very good points about what is the aspirations of what we are trying to achieve here, but I have concerns that that will not be achieved. As we have already seen within the bill, the minister would have potential opportunities to come into a planning department and deal with the planning department, to take control of a planning department if those were not being put forward. I still have some way to go to be convinced by that process. Those local place plans have a real opportunity to improve local communities' perceptions and involvement in the planning system, but it is the communities themselves that need to spend time to achieve and ensure that they must take material processes within what we are going forward. The bill proposes to introduce simplified development zones, and I very much welcome the fact of those zones. Those zones will expand the types of development that the planning process is required beyond what is offered at the present, simplifying some of that process, and in some cases it can be very positive because it could give us the opportunity to deliver some infrastructure. Simple development plans could go forward to show the authority to prepare details of types of development of nature that are needed to be permitted. Given the simple by development zones, which include things such as road construction and listed building consents, it is very important that those proposals for the zones could be included in the national planning framework, or local development plans to ensure that they are fully consulted on the part that is going forward. Infrastructure is vitally important when developing. Monica Lennon I am grateful to Alexander Stewart. I am listening with intent about the simplified development zones or whatever their new name is, master plan consent areas. I think that we would all like to believe that they will magically make development happen. The member talked about infrastructure, just because he put something in the plan does not mean that the money is going to magically appear. What is in those master plan consent zones that is going to bring budget along? We cannot just ask developers to come and bring sacks of money. That is not realistic. Where is the money coming from to make this infrastructure appear? Monica Lennon makes a valid point on that. We need to ensure that the money comes where the opportunities are. If there is to be a development and progress and there is structure to be there, we need to ensure that that comes along with it. That has happened in the past, so it should not be too difficult for it to happen in the future. The fact of one of the biggest concerns for local residents often is that there is significant expansion in housing in communities where the existing concerns about how provision can cope with that. The current processes for requiring developments that make infrastructure contributions through a section 75 agreement can be limited, given that there are already restrictions on infrastructure that we have. Therefore, the proposal to introduce an infrastructure levy is an interesting one. If done properly, such a levy could unlock additional development land, but only could. However, there are a number of problems with specific proposals that are set out on the bill. First, it will bring about 75 million addition at the most, which is about 1 per cent of the 7.5 billion that the Scottish Government estimates would be significant to deal with infrastructure across developments across Scotland. Moreover, it is concerning to see that the powers within the bill are currently drafted would enable Scottish ministers to redistribute the levy funds across Scotland. A very concerning issue and has been talked about before about this power grab. This is yet again another example of the SNP centralisation agenda and is especially disappointing. I would like to continue. The member is coming into his last minute. In light of the good intentions of the local place plans, there is a fundamental, that long-established principle that money raised locally should be spent locally. We and the Scottish Conservatives will continue to defend that robustly in conclusion. I will support the general principles of the bill and acknowledge that it makes some positive change. It will not radically reform the planning system, and that is a difficulty for us. To that end, as my colleague Graham Simpson has already said, we shall be voting for the bill to progress to stage 2, despite the reservations that we have, but we will ensure that there is a robust debate and that it should be strengthened. I hope that the Scottish Government will engage constructively with everyone both within the chamber and outwith to ensure that the possibility of amendments that can serve to enhance the bill will be allowed to come forward. I look forward to playing my part. No, no, no. You have to stop now. It was a fair quack of a whip. Okay. I look forward to playing my part. Thank you. I'm sure you do. I call Sandra White to be followed by Alec Rowley. Thank you very much. I'm not a member of the committee, but I'm pleased to be speaking in this debate. I thank the committee members for the report that they've brought forward. Planning is a very important issue, not just to local communities, but to elected members. I welcome the stage 1 of the planning bill, which aims to strengthen and simplify the planning system. There will be a lot of talk about that. I'm sure that as we go on to stage 2 and stage 3, we'll see if it has simplified it, particularly for the local communities to serve and for the economic growth that will come through a better planning system for the whole of the country, not just for my constituency. We know that part 1 of the bill seeks to strengthen and reaffirm the role of the development plans and the plan-led system. That part enhances the status of the national planning framework, incorporating the planning policy and bringing with it the statutory development plans. Remove the requirement to produce the strategic development plans, as has already been said, and restructure the process for the reduction of local development plans, basically supporting greater emphasis on delivery of development. It includes a new right for communities to produce their own plans. I think that this is an excellent idea. I believe that local involvement is crucial in a planning bill. I'll go on to say a bit more about that and take on board what the minister has said about local plans. I have a number of questions, perhaps I can simplify it here or reply to it or realise that it may come up on issues at stage particularly 2. If the local council development plan does not give due consideration to the local place plans and apply recommendations, will the local place plans have any right of appeal? Will the Scottish ministers intervene in that particular one? What support will be offered in order to set up and produce a local place plan? Will it be monetary or just the expertise of planning officers and local councils as well? How would local place plans work within the jurisdiction of the community empowerment bill? I want to thank Age Scotland for sending in some briefing in regard to older people, which I think could be instrumental in delivering local place plans, could be instrumental in delivering those aspirations. They mentioned the fact about prioritising housing for older people, introducing national targets, which is for everyone obviously, but also identifying land for older people's housing. That's raised with me quite a lot in my constituency and initiative projects and services designed to promote intergenerational living, which is a huge issue and is a very good way of looking at things. I wonder if that would be taken into consideration in the local place plans and the local plans from the councils. I have to raise the issue of local issues. I know that others have too, but the biggest local issue that causes the biggest controversy in my constituency is private student accommodation. We all understand the need for student accommodation provision across my constituency and others, but the concern is about the real negative impact that that is having on the community, the centre of community and provision of abordable housing. It has been raised before about infrastructure in relation to the influx of—I am talking about my constituency—65 per cent of planning for private student accommodation within the Kelvin constituency. That is a huge amount of thousands of people. We have spoken about local populations, GP services, surgeries, dentists, road cleaners and all that. I wonder if that will come into the particular planning bill. In my area, there is very little land to build on in any of the available land. Any of it has been brought up by developers for student accommodation. We do not have land in Kelvin constituency to build affordable housing. We have housing associations put forward a bid. They are outbid by the local developers or the bigger developers. It is a critical shortage of housing in my constituency. I would like that to be looked at. I know that Edinburgh has given some practical evidence that it requires that student housing be part of a mixed development rather than just stand-alone student accommodation. That is a very good idea that perhaps people should look at. I thank my colleagues on Glasgow City Council, who have brought forward provisions to do with planning. Over-provision is part of an objection to planning developments. They have also embarked on a huge consultation exercise with the people of Glasgow and the whole to see what they think about local housing and student accommodation in their area. I thank them for that. There is another area in which I know that Keith Brown, the cabinet secretary, is looking at, in that short term, let's, Airbnb and others. That is a number of concerns in my constituency. Some are pretty good, but others take away affordable housing in the area, take away the let's, and some of the very negative impacts, such as party flats, as it is termed at. I know that I understand that Keith Brown is looking at that, but I wonder how the planning bill will have an effect on the short-term let's as well. Lots of talk have been about third party right of appeal. I must admit that I hold my hands up in 2004, 2006, and I was the member who introduced my private member's bill for third party right of appeal. I have to say that no other party supported it. However, it is still on the go, and I welcome that fact. Andy Wightman Quite for taking intervention. Indeed, she did bring that bill. During the last stage 1 debate in May 2006 on the previous bill, Sandra White claimed that the third party right of appeal is SNP policy. Is it still SNP policy? If it is not, when was it dropped? I think that you need to ask the ministers, etc., if it is SNP policy. It is certainly an effect that I thought had been discussed. I think that this is an ideal opportunity to discuss it and bring it back on board, where people agree with it, their own party or others, Labour Party's Conservatives. That is really up to yourselves as well. I am just pointing that out. Things have been raised and mentioned about third party right of appeal. I do not know if the one about no appeal would be workable. I am not sure about that. Can I tell you that, based on the size and type of development, that might be problematic. Waiver of appeal fees for local communities could be looked at. I am just throwing that in the mix to say that there is a stage 2 and stage 3, and I did not want to bypass third party right of appeal. I think that it is important that it is got to be discussed, and it has been discussed, and I look forward to further discussion on that particular one. It is not all doom and gloom in the constituency, Presiding Officer, or members as well. I have met many development developers in my area. We have had a whisky distillery. We have had lots of really good developments in the Kelvin constituency, but one of the things that has made it absolutely essential is the fact that they met the local community and the local members, and I urge all developers to make sure that local communities are involved in any planning process. That is a good place to stop. I thank the committee for the work that they have done in producing the report, which I think will be a very helpful report. As Bob Dorris says, it is difficult to go through all the big issues in here today, but in the coming weeks and months, I hope that and I know that this report will be very helpful. In terms of the consensus that I believe in here today amongst the majority in this chamber, it is that, as the draft planning bill stands, it is deeply disappointing. That is certainly the view of Labour, but I think it is the view of a majority in this chamber. I do hope that Kevin Stewart, the minister, will be willing to take that on board and will work with the other parties, because if the other parties can work together, they can quite radically transform what is a very disappointing bill as it stands at this time. Hopefully, we can get that consensus and work together and look at some of the big changes. In terms of the current planning system, when I ask myself what is wrong with the current planning system, I have to say that I start with the planning departments themselves. The Royal Town Planning Institute has pointed out that between 2009 and 2016, local authorities on average lost 23 per cent of planning staff, while over the same period, planning services budgets were cut by an average of 32.5 per cent. They go on to say that those figures illustrate the resource pressure that local authority planning services are experiencing, so they cannot simply ignore the impacts that those cuts have had on planning departments up and down Scotland. Indeed, we are unisoning it. Bob Doris, I thank the member for giving way. It is very interesting in relation to the financial pressures of planning departments. There is, of course, a fees review on, currently, in that year of full-cost recovery. Will you support the vast majority, if not all, of those monies raised going directly with the planning departments to fund the kind of things that you are suggesting, Mr Rowley? I think that we need to look at the balance and we need to also look at the impact that that would have. The fair Bob Doris Energy UK specifically raised that issue with me. It raised its concerns that that could be something that would be a barrier to developing a more low-carbon and renewable energy infrastructure in place. Those discussions need to take place with industry, with business. Another point of the planning bill that we really need to get our heads around is how are we going to drive the Scottish economy? How are we going to drive the investment coming into Scotland and putting in place the necessary infrastructure to create the jobs of the future? Planning has many aspects to it, but one of them has to be driving business, industry and the Scottish economy. Those consultations, I would suggest, need to take place. Coming back to the point about staff themselves, unison is the public sector union that represents the majority planners. Given evidence that they said, and I quote, planners tell us that they are overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of their workloads. They are also extremely stressed by the personal interaction that they often experience with clients. Good planning does not require yet another reform programme. Improvement will come through adequate funding, staffing levels and empowering staff. Its resources need not reorganisation, so that comes from the public sector unison. I would say to the Government that, while we work on the planning bill, we have to address the issues that are being raised. We simply cannot ignore them and blame the planning system for the fact that it is not delivering for our economy or for housing. Housing is a key part of the planning system that we also need to look at. We accept Shelter Scotland's proposition that Scotland has a housing crisis. Some would have us believe that, somehow, the planning systems that fall and all we need to do is fix the planning system, but we know that that is not the case. I have raised with the minister time and time again the problems in major developments that are going ahead, where there is a lackey upfront infrastructure funding to allow those developments to go ahead, particularly in education and other public services. I am not sure that he has addressed that in here. When the minister and the bill talked about placement and local placement parts, I would like to see local impact assessment on public services to take place wherever housing developments are going to be built. In my own home village right now, there is a proposal for 900 houses that is welcomed by the local community. It has been stalled for a year and a half because there was no front-loading for the infrastructure of the schools and it has now been stalled because the community is saying, including the medical practice, that unless there is some kind of infrastructure funding found for a local medical practice, then they will have to close their doors to everybody coming in to live in that village. When a community comes up with a placement plan that says that we need local infrastructure, local public services and local leisure services, that has to be taken into account as a material consideration when a planning application is being considered. Sorry, Mr Rowley. You are speaking or me. Mr Rowley is just closing. To conclude, there are major issues and major opportunities. I do hope that the minister will listen because there is a majority in this Parliament right now that does not believe that what is being brought forward is good enough and that it needs vast improvement. I very much welcome the bill and, importantly, this debate about how we strengthen and simplify our planning system. Planning is, of course, about placemaking and, most importantly, people, whether they are the places that we live, work or visit. It has a real impact on all our lives. Although it is a complex area of policy and law, it is crucial. That is why the bill is so important. Although it is a framework bill—and I absolutely respect that—it is also rightly, in my view, brought focus to planning policy more widely and deeply. There is so much that I could say on the subject, but I will contain my remarks today on a number of focused points. First of all, considering that I represent the most densely populated area of Scotland, where planning is a very topical and emotive issue at the moment, I would like to focus on how we empower communities. The question for me is how do we meaningfully more substantially empower communities, while also crucially build the houses that we need, the offices that we need and the infrastructure that we need to meet our needs and sustainably grow our economy in a sensible and sensitive way? Most prominently at the moment in my constituency, the issue is being discussed, particularly in Leith, around a proposed demolition and development on Leith Walk. I pay tribute to the Save Leith Walk campaign today and the great work that it is doing to try to stop the demolition and make sure that the community's voice is heard, and I am absolutely right behind it. I think that those campaigns are important because local people get involved in those campaigns because they care about their community, and I pay tribute to campaigners. It has been rightly said that it is not nimbyism when people raise issues around development. I think that a campaign previously to stop an inner ring road being built through this city, which would have devastated parts of our capital city if people hadn't campaigned against it. I think that that is illustrative of the fact that, with those big campaigns, campaigners are usually right. That is why we need to do what we can to make sure that we give greater engagement for local people to have an effective voice in the system. That is why I warmly welcome the local place plans, giving that upfront empowerment. I just think of how much the Save Leith Walk campaign would benefit from being part of something like that right now, the Save Canemills bridge campaign, the Save Herriot Hill campaign and other campaigns that have been in my constituency. I am grateful to Mr McPherson. Can you address the point of what happens when communities are divided on an issue? We may not be a common view because there are people within Leith that are people in Canemills who were supportive of what was going on ahead. How do we have their voice heard, or is it simply the loudest that is heard? I think that that is the point, and that is why something like a local place plan would play such an important role, because it could bring different community groups together in order to make sure that there is a cohesive position and that different views are heard on different matters. I think of how that has already happened in my constituency before, in terms of here and now, a company that is based in Edinburgh who does that work, and also prominently Leith Creative, who has undertaken a charrette in Leith, funded by the Scottish Government to see how local communities can engage in the process like that. I note that Leith Creative, in its submission to the committee at stage 1, talked about sufficient resourcing for local place plans. I welcome the fact that the committee has also emphasised that point. Other points that have been made to me around the expanded scope and breadth of potential notification processes, and I also welcome the point around fees to help with resources for enforcement. In terms of appeals, which I know has been a point made, that is a very difficult point that I have tried to remain open-minded on all the way through since before I am being elected. There is obviously a balance to be struck here that the minister put it well between trying to enable collaboration rather than conflict. I appreciate the potential risks to the economy and investment, but most importantly, powerfully, planning aid Scotland and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations are against the third party right of appeal. In terms of the affordable housing demand that we have and the way that planning aid Scotland already supports community engagement and planning, the fact that they are against the third party right of appeal is quite compelling to me. In terms of the other side of the argument that is around the developer's right of appeal, I note that the committee believes that a plan-led system appeal should only be allowed in certain circumstances. To me, that is an important question to ask, because to stop applicants taking a hard line from the beginning and engaging in local place plans, perhaps, in my view, it needs to be potentially possibly more prohibitive, perhaps financially, for developers to bring appeals. Perhaps there is also a need to look at the transparency around the process. One of the things that I have really welcomed that has also been discussed around the bill is the infrastructure levy. I know that that will be thrashed out in secondary legislation, but that could make a real difference not just in terms of roads and education, which has been the case up until now in the majority, but also around healthcare provision and childcare provision, which is something that is very significant at the moment to all of us. There are a lot of other points that I could make around the creative industry's potential for, as an agent for change, as well as the music industry, around renewable technology, around how we build in capacity for sustainable transport, whether that is secure, bike— How about around closing your remarks? Building standards. Most of all, I would say that it is really important that we get this right and emphasise on design and quality, because, as has been said, securing the development of great places that will stand the test of time is where our focus should be. I have Jeremy Balfour for the Richard Lyle. Five minutes, please, Mr Balfour. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, for 11 years, was a councillor here in Edinburgh and for five of these years I sat on the planning committee. Unlike the member Richard Lyle, as far as I'm aware, I had no nickname on that planning committee, but I was a very interesting experience for me for five years to see how the city developed. The bill is vital and important for the whole of Scotland, but particularly for the Lovians. We are seeing an expansion in house building both in the city and in the east, mid and west Lovians. We need a planning bill that allows that development to continue, but to continue in a way that is properly regulated. I have to say that, having spent the bank holiday weekend looking at the bill, looking at the committee report and the response from the minister, the one striking headline that hit me was that SNP Government doesn't trust local government. That is the clear thing that comes from the bill. If I was an SNP councillor in Scotland, I would be saying to this Government that you clearly do not trust the decisions that we are making locally. That is a damning indictment on the centralising Government. That is a bill that has missed opportunities written all over it. I feel sorry, to some extent, for my colleagues who are going to have to take this through stage 2, because the number of amendments that are going to have to be passed to make this workable will give you plenty of entertainment over the next few months. Let me, in the short time, give one example of where I think there is a power grab and one example of where there is a gaping hole within the bill. I am a great fan of local development plans. I think that they are, in principle, a good thing. I think that there is something that can be looked at every five, ten years, can be reviewed and can give the local area, the city or the region, some understanding of where we are going over that time. I am pleased that the Government has agreed that we need to engage with local communities. Although I do think that there is still difficulties around defining who that local community is and how that local community is heard from. Again, I spent 11 years attending community councils within my ward, and often there were very good people looking to represent the area, but I am not sure that they totally represented the whole public view of what was going on in that neighbourhood. I do think that we need to find devices open to us that really do engage with the whole community within an area. However, we have those local development plans, which will go through vast amounts of drafting by council officers, will be debated by the planning committee, will be approved by a full council, and then what? The minister signs them off. Why does the minister need to sign off a local development plan? Surely the key is, in the first word, local, not national, not something that a Government should be scrutinising and taking over and taking away from the whole concept of local democracy. The second point where I think that the committee needs to come back and look at this, and I raised it with the minister on Thursday at general questions, is that in regard to disability, housing, and housing for those who have different disabilities. There is nothing, as far as I can see—I am open to correction—there is nothing that I can see in this bill at the stage that gives any kind of assurance that appropriate and the right number of housing will be built for those with disabilities. I think that the committee needs to think about this at stage 2 and we at stage 3, as a Parliament, need to look at this. The perception is that we simply build housing and then we fit the disabled stuff in around it. Too often I hear from disabled charities that they go in and it costs £1,000 to then have to re-adap the property because it is not set up for a wheelchair or for visual impairment or for other disabilities. I have to say that this is a disappointing stage that we have got to so far. We will, like everyone in Barber, Lib Dems, support this tonight because I hope that it can be changed with amendments at stage 2 and stage 3, but there is a long way to go and the Government must listen to local communities and actually even listen to their own councillors. Thank you very much. I call Richard Lyle to be followed by Tom Mason. How long do you have? Six minutes, Mr Lyle. Oh, thank you very much. The chance went up. Planning is an issue that I have had close experience having been a long-time councillor in my old district and sub-student line of Lancer Council. I have therefore seen the best and the not-so-great in terms of our planning process here in Scotland. The bill before Parliament comes at a result of an SNP Government's commitment to improve the system of development planning. It is more important than given people a greater say in the future of their places and supporting delivery of planned development. The bill does that as the minister outlined in several clear parts. I wish to highlight just a number of those elements. From part 1, which focuses on strengthening and reaffirming the role of the development plan, the plan-led system, which removes the requirement to produce strategic development plans and focuses instead on the production of a local development plan that supports the delivery of development. Part 1 also, I believe, delivers a new right for communities to produce their own plans for their places called local place plans. We are funding our commitment to involve local people, local communities to be better involved in the planning process across Scotland. A centralising Government? Not true. Part 3 of the bill makes a number of changes to development management processes. I am ending current provisions for considering and deciding planning applications to support improved efficiency, what appropriate local consultation and, importantly, more local decision making. The final elements that I wish to reflect on in the terms of the bill are parts 4 and 5. As they recognise the changes that are required to support effective performance across a plethora of planning functions, including strengthening planning authorities' abilities to effectively use their own powers to ensure appropriate enforcement of unauthorised development, it includes a requirement for members of the planning authority to undertake training and planning, something that I never got as a councillor, which I am sure will be a great benefit to colleagues throughout local government. In my experience, councillors are placed on the planning committee based on the need to represent their ward areas on the planning authority. Councillors should not only be placed relevant to their own area but also, importantly, to consider appropriately applications that are relevant to the whole local authority. They are there to serve all of their local authority community. They should include consideration over economic impact of developments through consistent investment in our communities. People often say that I wish to build for building sake, but that is not true. I wish also to preserve, but we must recognise that we all, as elected members, be it at local authority planning or in this place, should wish to have developments in that area, which contribute to local economy, to local job creation and ultimately contribute to better outcomes for all those who we represent. No, I am sorry, I do not have time. Finally, part 5 delivers on an idea that I think is very worthwhile and has the potential to deliver significant return to communities. As the bill allows for provision of the introduction of infrastructure levy, payable to councils, linked to development, that can be used to fund or indeed contribute to infrastructure projects that can incentivise delivery of developments. That levy should be, in my opinion, used locally to benefit the community. As we consider this bill today, it is important for all of us across the chamber to consider why the bill is important and it is much needed. The answer is clear. The planning bill is central to the SNP Government's package of measures intended to strengthen the planning system, contribution to the inclusive growth and empowering community agenda. We are constantly being told by the Opposition that we need to grow the economy. Well, we are doing that, from house building to plans that deliver job creation, we need to balance the ambitions with considerations to all our important local environments. We should be saying yes, continually protect and celebrate, but we also need to build to house and provide jobs. The bill rightly is seen as another key milestone in its journey to improve the planning system and should be recognised as a journey. It is abundantly clear that the new planning bill will strengthen local community. Planning is a tool to improve the economic situation of a local area and should be used to drive the economy. Developers should be encouraged, not discouraged. It is abundantly clear that the new planning bill will strengthen the role that local people will have in the planning process. I encourage councils and councillors to discuss more with people. I encourage councils as planning authorities to have a more proactive discussion with potential developers and to ensure that what has been proposed is relevant to the local area. Developers should be given a chance to amend, revise and take a license of the advice that local people and planners have given to support the proposal to fit the needs of local people, the local area and our nation. I hope that the planning bill delivers for Scotland and all our communities more positive outcomes and a better system for the future in driving the Scottish economy and delivering for all. I call Tom Mason to be followed by Ian Gray. Five minutes please, Mr Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I remind the chamber that I am an Abney City Counciler and for the minister's interest, I have undergone planning training, which was entertaining but not very comprehensive. Planning in our local community is one of the most contentious issues that our constituents have to deal with. To most, it is too complex, for many, grossly unfair, and most of the certainty in the city of Aberdeen cannot understand why certain buildings are put in certain places. When confronting a planning dispute, constituents are often left fighting for their communities in the battle with well-resourced developers. I am sure that broadcasting will have taken note of that. Mr Mason, if you could make sure that it is pointing straight at you. I'll do my best. Thank you very much. Anyway, such circumstances often result in many objections to a project. In the introduction of this bill, we have seen Government representatives describing objections as a delay to be avoided. However, many lose immunity and experience disruptions and yet receive no conversation from the developer. They have no option but to object. The bill is particularly pertinent where projects do not follow local development plans. People may have purchased property on the understanding that local plan would be followed. It seems unreasonable that the plan is negotiated and consulted on and can be easily overturned by the council without justification on any alternative authority. In Aberdeen, we saw an example of this with the new football stadium, a decision that attracted its fair share controversy. I think that it is right to take the time to engage with stakeholders as others have stated. We hope to work without the best approach for the appeal process as a result of the evidence given in stage 2. Information on planning applications has vastly improved thanks to the internet, but notifications of those affected is only made to immediate neighbours. This assumes that the effect of development is limited to those sharing a boundary with the property. However, in a city, you usually cannot see past your own street. In rural areas, visibility is greater and the project can completely change your surrounding landscape without any notification required. Additionally, when infrastructure construction cuts through properties, it instigates compulsory purchase orders and the occupant to receive statutory compensation as a minimum, often more. A joining property is which missed the construction cut, even though as little as 10 centimetres to receive no compensation, though a loss of amenity can be equally, if not worse, than those losing their land, including visual noise and air pollution. Current systems aside, the bill itself has some issues that need fixing. One is the introduction of local place plans. This element of the bill allows communities to come up with their own plans, which planning authorities must consider as part of the process. In principle, I welcome the idea that communities have a conditional list for future planning in the area. However, the bill does not place any obligation on the authorities to follow those plans, only that they have regard to them. That unfortunately creates a situation in which people spend long hours and significant sums of money preparing plans for their own communities. However, when push comes to shove, they are ignored. Another area of the convention is the infrastructure levy. The bill would give shortest ministers as part to impose a levy on developers, toting an estimated 750 million over 10 years. That works out at a maximum of 75 million per year, which is insufficient for developing the estimated £1.5 billion that is needed for housing. I wondered why such small fractions should be incentive enough for the Government to introduce the bill. I saw the first fine print. The Scottish Government can, if it wants, require local authorities to hand over their levy money to be redistributed among local authorities as government pleases, but it is all starting to make sense. Another day, another attempt to centralise power into St Andrew's house. I expect more from the bill. I feel that we have been promised a major shake-up of how planning is conducted, but the many emails that we have all received from the constituents and stakeholders has shown us that this is far from major. It is clear that there are issues with the bill as it currently stands, and there will be a significant amount of work as it progresses through Parliament. However, I do not think that those problems can be overcome and that the suitable bill can be agreed. One that not only provides us with a planning system that is both efficient and fit for purpose but also puts opinion at the forefront of decision making. I will be supporting this bill at this stage and look forward to considering future improvements to it in due course. I must say, minister, that it would be much better to turn this one up and start again. Iain Gray, to be followed by George Adam. I am often asked, for example, by visiting school groups, what is the biggest issue that arises in my constituency? Although I often talk about health service and education, the truth is that planning is the biggest issue in my constituency. I want to talk a little about East Lothian, but I do so because it epitomises the issues at the heart of this afternoon's debate and the reasons why the bill must be improved. East Lothian suffers significantly a lot of the pressures that colleagues have referred to. We are the fastest-growing part of Scotland in terms of population. Our population has gone up by 20 per cent in the last 20 years, and it is projected to rise by 30 per cent in the next 20 to 25 years. Therefore, the national plan imposes on East Lothian a requirement to find sites for over 10,000 houses. We have a significant issue in trying to provide enough employment and jobs for that growing population to avoid becoming simply a commuter county for the city of Edinburgh next door to us. We have key industries such as agriculture and tourism, which require protection and promotion from the planning system. East Lothian is made up of six towns and associated villages, each one of which has its own character, its own viability and sustainability, which the planning system must find a way of maintaining. We have to do that. We have to avoid incremental growth in those communities, adding more and more houses a few at a time, diluting their character and placing that kind of boiling-the-frog pressure on infrastructure such as schools and health services. Almost as we speak this morning, our local council agreed their local development plan. It will identify sites for over 10,000 houses, but it goes to great lengths to do that while avoiding the destruction of our existing communities. It focuses on large housing sites, including, in one case, a completely new settlement at Blind Wells. That allows for plans in there to improve infrastructure, for example, through the provision of a number of new schools. The problem is that our previous local development plan has been systematically ignored for years by developers with the support of Scottish ministers and their reporters. Every town and village in East Lothian has suffered from inappropriate housing developments, some in the hundreds of houses, some increasing a village in size by as much as 30 per cent, some joining one village to the next one in a way that we have tried to avoid for many years, all through developers appealing planning decisions that have been refused, and then seeing in most years up to 80 per cent or more of those appeals simply being upheld. Indeed, in one year, 100 per cent of developer appeals against local planning decisions being upheld. Those are developers who are in many ways playing the system, because some of them are developers who had planning permission for housing in agreed local development sites, which they simply refused to develop while they pursued other sites, arguing to the reporter successfully that because they were not progressing housing elsewhere, they had to do in that particular place to meet population needs. It is not just around housing. Close to Dunbar, we have near and completion on energy from waste incinerator, a project that I was unable to find a single constituent in local communities who supported, rejected by the local authority but simply overturned on appeal, and then immediately the planning conditions were varied so that we will now see waste brought from all over Scotland and North England to that part of my constituency exactly as we feared. That is before we get to the site of the former Kikkenzie power station, where the local authority has not even had the chance to take a decision before the minister has chosen to call that planning decision in. All that on the basis of a national planning framework, which is outdated for that site because it identifies bringing electricity ashore, which nobody disputes, and a new thermal power station, which nobody has any intention of building. If there is conflict or mistrust in the system, then this is its genesis. My constituents want decisions to be taken locally wherever that is possible. Most of them, I do not think, want an unqualified third party right of appeal, because that would mean even more decisions taken elsewhere. However, they do not see why they have no right of appeal when developers have an unrestricted right of appeal, and that is why we should balance that up to give a qualified right of appeal on both sides. They will not invest either time or resources in local plans, local place plans, because they simply do not believe that they will be respected. Their experience of the system is that ministers do not respect local decisions, and until the bill changes to demonstrate that it does, then it is not good enough. The last of the open debate contributions is from George Adam. I would like to thank the usual suspects at the start of this. My contribution, the clerks and the committee for all their work. Although I am not on the committee, I still take a keen interest in the planning system. It is one of the things that you do when you are a former councillor. You know how important it is.  However, you tend to avoid those things at the start, but then you know how important it is to the economic development and wellbeing of the area that you represent, and you see how important it can be, and it is not. Monica Lennon is quite right when she said that it can appear dry and difficult, but eventually you see the importance of how important it is to make a difference. All of us when we are involved in politics, the reason why we got involved was to change our communities in the planning system as a key part of that. However, what you do about planning is a big money question, because the planning system can be a nightmare for absolutely everyone involved in the system, whether it is the developer, planners or individuals who are at the other end of the process. They always seem to have difficulties in trying to marry that up. I think that the bill makes a movement in the right direction for that, and it makes a difference. One of the things that you have to be mindful of is that no matter how well we write a planning bill, no matter how expertly we think that we can do this, it will never be perfect, and it will not be perfect for absolutely everyone, but we have to get as close as we possibly can. One of the things that I was quite interested in with Jenny Gilruth is when you answered the question, how do we do this, you look at when she was talking about young people in the language and getting them engaging. It is not just about engaging, but about people early on. It is also about engaging across the community. I found that quite interesting in itself. However, one of the things that we mentioned during the debate is engagement with poorer communities. Yes, that can be difficult, but there are times when I have one in Ferguson Park, a community council, which is okay. It is the first one that they have had there for about 18 years, but now it is very proactive and it is quite a dynamic group of individuals who are looking at planning. Their needs are entirely different from the needs from other parts of the town. That shows you where we need the flexibility to be able to deal with that, whether it be in a local community or whether it be within the whole of Scotland nation itself. However, I come to this debate with the benefit of the experience that I have gained in my time in the council, and colleagues may listen or decide that my thoughts are not what they want to be, but that is what I believe in. The main reason that I have taken part in this debate is probably the main reason why I have taken part in just about every debate. The planning system is an integral part of the regeneration of Paisley. I know that it is very unusual for me to be so parochial about this, but that is what my constituents want and that is what I want. We need a planning system that will help, not hinder development in our town and regeneration, and flexibility that will ensure that that redevelopment actually happens. It goes back to what I said earlier on. We have had a couple of contributions from colleagues, and everything is quite different. Mr Lyle will have a different problem with development in his area than I will. In my area, we have to work harder to ensure that people want to come to our area to ensure that we can get the housing that we need. We need that flexibility at a local level so that planners can do that as well, because the problems that we have is that we will not deliver. Paisley needs to expand and have more. The demographic needs to be larger as well, and it needs to continue to be Scotland's largest town, to the representative of East Kilbride that is in the chair at the moment. One of the things that we have to do is to make sure that we build on that. That becomes very difficult if there are things such as the third party right of appeal. I can see why some people would like that idea, but that is probably a reason why the current system is not working, that people are looking at that in itself. Andy Wightman I thank Mr Adam for taking intervention. In 2006, the third party right of appeal was SNP policy. Does the member know whether it is still SNP policy or not when it was dropped? George Adam There have been two independent plan reviews since then, so things do move on. One of the things that I would like to add is that what I am looking for in Paisley is the fact that we need to make sure that we get that opportunity to be able to make those developments go forward. Flexibility is one of the most important things. When the bill was introduced itself, the Minister for Local Government and House and Kevin Stewart said that Scotland's economy needs a world-class planning system, our planning system must take a strongly confident lead in securing the development of great places. I want the bill to help my great place in my hometown and make it even better. I believe that the planning bill does help with that. Is it perfect?  One of the main points of the bill for me is to create a planning system that engages with communities at the earliest point. As a former councillor and remfisher, I am only too aware of what happens when people in the community hear about a development or a decision at the very end of the process. That becomes more and more difficult as you continue, because by that time, people have already got to the stage where they have not been able to engage with and it becomes difficult. The Scottish Government's idea to get involved at that early stage is extremely helpful. The bill to me is about making a planning system that it can deliver for my constituency. I make no apology for that. There needs to be a flexibility in the bill that can work in other communities. We have heard today how that can be different in the many different parts of our country. I support the Scottish Government's work so far, and I look forward to the bill progressing through Parliament. We now move to the closing speeches. Disappointing to note that not all of those who have taken part in the debate are in the chamber, but I call Monica Lennon up to six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In my opening speech, I set out the positive case for why planning matters and why I believe that the bill fails to hit the mark. We have had a largely constructive debate this afternoon, but it is clear for the majority of us that this bill is at best underwhelming. I believe that that is because the drivers behind this bill are wrong. Planning did not create Scotland's housing crisis, and tinkering around the edges of the planning process will not solve the housing crisis. Alex Rowley hit the nail on the head when he talked about the need to frontload finance for infrastructure, and Andy Wightman's consultation on enabling local authorities to acquire land for public interest development at existing land use is attractive. Housing delivery is a major concern for us all. In 2014 and 2015, a number of major reports on housing in Scotland were published by the Royal Institution of Charter Surveys and published its report on building a better Scotland. In the commission for housing and wellbeing that was set up by Shells for Scotland, which was reported in 2015, it wrecks out a number of recommendations, not all about the planning system, but including that. I quote, The Scottish Government in partnership with planning authorities undertakes a review to assess the nature of existing planning consents in Scotland. In a previous debate, I asked the minister about that review that was back in January 2017. I did not get an answer then. Iain Gray's illustration in East Lothian, where we have a situation where housing is being built by appeal. That is no way to plan for our communities and to make sure that we cannot have developers as land banking sites abandoning them and going to pressure areas where the community infrastructure simply does not exist. A point that was also made by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Scotland's planning system is already very permissive. Over 95 per cent of planning applications are approved. However, how many of those consents remain houses on paper that do not get built and what is responsible for that? I go back to the question that I asked the minister. Is it a lack of access to development finance? Is it infrastructure costs? Is it low market confidence? Is it all of the above? The bill does not set out solutions to any of that, and I think that we have to have an honest discussion about that before we look at some of the detail in the bill. The national planning framework has got people quite exorcised in the chamber. The committee on paper agreed that incorporating the Scottish planning policy and the national planning framework was a fairly sensible thing to do. However, it is clear that there are a lot of people in the chamber who want to see greater pa