O'r next item of business, which is the continuation of stage 3 proceedings of the planning Scotland Bill. Just to remind members that in dealing with the bill, the bill has amended at stage 2, the marshaled list, the correction slip for amendment 3 and the grouping of amendments.  That will be a 32nd vote. Thereafter, there will be a one-minute vote following the first vote on every debate. Every other vote will be 30 seconds. Yesterday, I tried to give members a rough idea of which were the long groups and got it specularily wrong. I had been asked by a member to indicate that I got it specularily wrong, so I am not going to do so today. However, I will indicate that we are likely to take a break following group 25, which might be around 4.30. We might take another break following group 32, but we will play that by ear and I will try to indicate to members in advance when that is about to happen. To refer to the martial list now, we will pick up at group 16, which is land value capture sharing. I call amendment 112, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 212 and 215. Graham Simpson, to move amendment 112. Thank you. It feels like I've never been away. I move amendment 112, in my name. This removes land value capture from the face of the bill. It was introduced into the bill by an amendment that I tabled at stage 2. Initially, the bill had no mechanism for capturing any land value uplift. It was a subject that the committee had a really close look at. I think there is general cross-party support for the concept. However, the amendment that I tabled has raised some concerns, some legal concerns. I have to be honest about that and just say that I don't think that there is a place for it in this bill. I think that there are problems with it. People like the Scottish Property Federation have called it premature. They welcome my amendment today, which removes the provision. Scottish land and estates point 2 is possible in compatibility with EHCR. That was also a point raised by the committee that I convened, the DPLR committee. Given the work that is going on by the Scottish Land Commission on this, this is not the place for it. I am happy to move that we remove this. On that basis, I will not be supporting Alex Rowley's amendment 2.1.2 and 2.1.5. I call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 2.1.2 and the other amendments. In moving 2.1.2 and 2.1.5, those amendments require ministers to lay the regulation to facilitate land value capture within 18 months of royal assent off the plan and bill. Legislation to facilitate land value capture off land value share has been usefully termed by the Scottish Land Commission as not a silver bullet that will solve all our current housing supply crisis. We need to adopt a much more proactive approach to public interest-led development across the board, enabling public bodies to take the lead in major development. However, land value share could play a key role in this. It is deeply disappointing to see that the Tories and the Government team up to remove one of the transformative amendments to the bill from stage 2. It should not have been beyond the Government to resolve the legal change required to make this possible. We are giving the Government an opportunity to cement their support for the principle of land value sharing and commit to providing the legislative framework to make it possible. On the timeframe, we approached the Government before the amendment deadline and stated that we were open to their comments and to extending the timeframe if they were willing to support this amendment. We do not accept that as an explanation for why they are refusing to accept the amendment. The Government has failed to make formal responses to the Land Commission's brilliant recent reports on land value sharing and failed to say whether it accepts its recommendations. Can you blame us for starting to question its commitment to it? I asked the First Minister about this. I do not know if Alex Rowley was in the chamber when that happened. She said that there would be a full response to the Land Commission's report after this bill is dealt with. That is what the First Minister has said. I am pretty sure that I heard the housing minister say in this chamber that he actually accepted all the recommendations, but he will be able to confirm that himself. Alex Rowley, we seem to have some coalition going on between the SNP and the Tories when it comes to trying to block any kind of radical proposal on land reform. I know who they speak for and it is now clear who they speak for. Can the minister stay on the official report that he will legislate on land value capture as soon as is reasonably possible? That is a fair question to put to the minister. Can he explain how he plans to make more publicly led development a reality? There would be huge benefits to both of those, despite what the Tories think. The minister, I hope, will answer that. The Scottish Land Commission has successfully convened that the land value sharing is not about negating all the benefits the private sector currently gets from development. It is about a publicly led approach being used to create additional value that can be used to create ambitious, attractive, sustainable and healthy places that, above all, are built to work for communities. Surely at the heart of the bill should be communities and should be people. Many of the issues that we have and will discuss this week, notably sufficiently housing for older people and disabled people, would be much more of a reality if we embrace publicly led development, where public bodies have more influence of the minimum standards of homes being built. It is this level of transformative change that is required to realise the vision that this Parliament has, not the limited provision put forward by the Government and accepted by the Tory party. I hope that both parties will consider supporting this amendment. Andy Wightman I welcome Graham Simpson in his new role as spokesperson for the First Minister. Ahead of stage 2 of the bill, I conducted a consultation on the proposal to enable local authorities to acquire land that has existing use value—a power that they had from 1947 until 1959—which would strip out a substantial part of the profit that accrues to landowners and developers from the uplift in land value. Developers such as Murray Estates, who are developing a large area in the west of Edinburgh, are a good example. Having secured planning consent, the company informed me in a meeting that they had with me that it would simply sell the land, poxting a very tidy profit through the granting of a public good planning consent. I know that the Government is interested in this concept, but it said that it had 18 months to bring forward proposals. Instead, it has kicked it into the long grass and missed the only legislative opportunity, possibly for some time, to introduce such a power. The power, as was envisaged—I had amended it myself at stage 2, which I did not press because Graham Simpson had got into the bill—would only apply in master plan consent areas. It was a very limited power, and we intentionally restricted that power to enable it to be experimental to an extent and to avoid any of the bigger problems that might apply if we applied it right across the piece. We were focusing that power on restricted areas, allowing councils to explore more plan-led, public-led development models that have provided so much success in countries such as Germany. We oppose the removal of section 54CA of the bill, and we vote against amendment 112. We will support Alex Rowley's amendment, however, thank you. As I have consistently made clear, we, as the Government, are interested in the concept of land value capture or sharing. We will explore how land value uplifts can be effectively captured to fund infrastructure. That is why the Government asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate the issue and why I welcomed the report that it published in May. However, I believe that the provisions added at stage 2 are premature and risk breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, I welcome Graham Simpson's amendment proposing to remove this section from the bill. While I recognise the intention behind Alex Rowley's proposals, I cannot support them. Changes to compulsory purchase should be done through primary legislation, and it is unrealistic to reform such a complex area of law in such a short timescale. The issue deserves careful examination and consultation, including how proposals would interact with other mechanisms such as planning agreements and the proposed infrastructure levy. We will therefore work with the Land Commission, the Scottish Futures Trust, local authorities and industry representatives to identify how local authorities can best use existing mechanisms to fund infrastructure and what support they may need to do so. We will also look at how new mechanisms such as the levy and land pooling might complement existing mechanisms and hence whether any changes are required to existing legislation and, crucially, how we can ensure that any changes are fully compliant with the ECHR. I refer members to some of the issues that are around about this, including the 1845 Land Clauses Consolidation Scotland act, which I am told is not going to be particularly easy to unpick to make sure that we get to ECHR compliance. What I have said constantly, and I will not move from this, is that if legislative change is needed, we will pursue that. That may take time, that may be in the next Parliament, but we will outline how we intend to move forward after the bill has passed, as has been said previously, and we will, of course, try to work with colleagues across the chamber because I think that, like Mr Simpson, there is cross-party support in those issues in the main. Thank you very much.  Amendment 112. Thank you. I urge the minister—he really needs to make a statement on this very soon after recess, once we have passed this bill. We need to get moving on this. There is cross-party support. It might look as though there is disagreement today. There isn't really. We all want to move on this. It is just a question of how we do it in legislation. I don't think that this is the appropriate place. This is a very complicated area. My view is that it actually needs a separate and entirely separate piece of legislation to bring it forward. I will press the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. This will be the first division of the day, however, so there will be a five-minute suspension. I will call all the members to the chamber and then we will vote. Thank you, colleagues. We will pick up where we were, which is a vote on amendment 112. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to, and members may cast their votes now. This will be a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 112, in the name of Graham Simpson, is yes, 88, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We will turn now to group 17 master plan consent areas. Amendment 13, in the name of Andy Whiteman, is grouped with amendments 125 and 126. Andy Whiteman, to move amendment 13 and to speak to the other amendments. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Master plan consent areas are one of the areas of the bill, which has been broadly welcomed, although the impact will remain to be seen. I want to first address my own amendment 13. Section 10, subsection 3 of the bill, introduces a new schedule 5A to the 97 act. Part 1 of the schedule is concerned with general rules about the content of any master plan consent area. Section 3 of part 1 lists those areas that may not be included in any such scheme, such as world heritage sites and marine protected areas. Our agreement to include such a list followed stage 1 scrutiny, and included in the list of those areas where one cannot have a master plan consent area, are national scenic areas, which is what my amendment refers to removing that. I do not agree that national scenic areas should be excluded by law from schemes, and my amendment 13 deletes NSAs from that list. It is the only designation that I think should be excluded. I am perfectly happy with all the rest. I want to explain why. National scenic areas cover large areas of Scotland, including settlements, where there is a need for more affordable housing. Those areas include large parts of Western Ross, Ascent, Sutherland, the whole of Harris, South Lewis, Contail, Lockshell and a quarter of the Cairngorms national park. As the minister is aware, SNH has got a consultative role when a development of more than five houses is proposed in a national scenic area, but it does not have a consultative role when any such proposal is specifically provided for in the local development plan. The minister will be aware of the recent controversy over affordable housing in North Skye. He will also be aware that circular 91987 contains the relevant rules in that regard. It is our view that master plan consent areas could play an important role in providing rural housing, and to exclude them by law from being available in national scenic areas is illogical when developments can already take place under existing planning provisions. In many areas, master plan consent areas have the potential to provide a more effective means of providing rural housing, and I have been told that by rural housing providers. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 13. Moving to the other amendments in the group, amendments 1 to 5 and 1 to 6 re-insert notification, calling and direction making powers that were removed at stage 2. Amendment 1 to 5 restates provisions that allow ministers to direct planning authorities to notify them, and those provisions were removed at stage 2. Amendment 1 to 6 reinstates ministerial powers to call in proposals for master plan consent areas and to modify them. Again, my amendment is at stage 2 to remove those powers, so we will vote against amendment 1 to 5 and 1 to 6. I understand that ministers see those powers as a parallel to those in place for ordinary planning applications. However, given that we wish to seek call in powers curtailed and in general we wish to limit the power of ministers of planning authorities, we will be opposing those two amendments. I move amendment 13. Thank you very much, and I call the minister to speak to amendment 1 to 5 and the other amendments. Master plan consent areas are a new way for planning authorities to take a proactive placemaking approach and provide consent. Mr Wightman has argued that they should be allowed in national scenic areas. At stage 2, I outlined how we have worked with the relevant agencies and agreed that it would be right to restrict MCAs in international and national designations. I still believe that that is a clear and appropriate approach. Mr Wightman suggested that MCAs could assist in repopulating NSAs in the islands. However, the island authorities have told us that they would not envisage bringing forward MCAs schemes for land in such areas. Therefore, I do not support amendment 13. My amendments 1 to 5 and 1 to 6 seek to reinstate provisions removed at stage 2, requiring planning authorities to notify ministers prior to finalising certain MCAs schemes and to give ministers associated call-in powers. Those are important safeguards. Members will have seen the key agencies groups letters highlighting that there is a direct read across to the equivalent mechanism for notification and calling of applications and to leave it out for master plan consent areas would create a significant gap. Removing those provisions removed the ability for ministers to consider calling-in schemes where there are unresolved objections from national agencies. Proposals that key agencies object to frequently also attract significant local interest with a public expectation that objections from a national agency will trigger a requirement for national-level scrutiny. I hope that members will support amendments 1 to 5 and 1 to 6 to ensure that crucial layer of scrutiny for cases that raises issues of national significance. If he wishes to add anything further to wind up. Yes, I am disappointed that the minister in his response to amendment 13. I just don't understand how, if you can build up to five houses in some of the most pressured areas of Scotland and Skyn, Contale and places, because they are in the local development plan, why master plan consent areas should not be available as well. Just because some local authorities have told the minister that they envisage no role for them, there is no reason to preclude any other local authority in any other part of Scotland either today or in five or ten years from being able to avail themselves of those powers. I am disappointed, but I accept how the vote will go. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now and it is a one-minute division on amendment 13. The result of the vote on amendment 13 in the name of Andy Whiteman is, yes, 33, no, 89. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We turn now to group 18, technical regulations. Can I call amendment 124 in the name of the minister, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings? Minister to move amendment 124. The group of amendments is mainly technical, removing duplication and tidying up wording. There is just one with a little more substance, which is amendment 155, section 20b of the bill in search of section 77a into the 1997 act. That enables ministers by regulations to make provision about the payment of compensation, where planning permission granted by a development order is withdrawn and a subsequent application for equivalent consent is refused or granted, subject to different conditions. In the stage 2 report on the bill, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that that power should be subject to the affirmative procedure because it deals with compensation and can apply or disapply provisions of primary legislation. I am happy to accept that recommendation and put forward this amendment. For the rest, I can provide more details if members have any questions, but I hope that those technical changes can be supported. Thank you, minister, and no other member wishes to comment on the section that goes straight to the vote. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 125, minister, to move? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a division and this will, in fact, be a one-minute division. Members, we cast the votes now. Amendment 125. The result of the vote on amendment number 125, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 94, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. I call amendment 126, in the name of the minister, minister, to move. I moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a 32nd division on amendment 126. The result of the vote on amendment number 126, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 95, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. Can I call amendment 127, in the name of the minister, minister, to move? I move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members, we cast the votes now on amendment 127. The result of the vote on amendment number 127, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 94, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. We are going to turn now to group 19 short term lets. Can I call amendment 156, in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings? I would point out at this stage that, if amendment 156 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 157, as will be preempted, or sorry, and as a consequence, amendments 157A to 157E, as they will all be preempted. Andy Wightman, to move amendment 156. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, before I forget, I move amendment 156. Following concerns expressed to me by constituents shortly after being elected in 2016, I began looking into the question of short term lets. I got the opportunity to lodge a general question on 19 January 2017, asking the Scottish Government what plans it had to regulate the growth. The minister will remember that probably as the audible sex party question. The minister, Kevin Stewart, told me that the Scottish Government has no plans to regulate the growth in short term letting. He told me that any change of use was a matter for the planning authority and that I should engage in the consultation on the planning bill, so here we are, where at stage 3 I engaged in the planning bill. I discussed the matter with planners, ran a consultation over summer 2018 and concluded that the planning rules governing change of use needed to be changed. Put simply the conversion of a domestic dwelling to a commercial short term let is a change of use and requires consent if the change is material. That is the law today. The problem lies in determining whether such a change is material or not, since planning authorities across the country tend to assess the question on the basis of the intensity and frequency of visitors. That is an impossible task for planning officers to effectively monitor the comings and goings of visitors. I lodged an amendment stage 2, which provided that a simple change of use from a dwelling to a commercial short term let, which is no longer the sole or main residence of any person constituted a change of use for the purposes of planning law with no additional material inquiries needing to be made. That amendment was accepted at stage 2, at form section 11B of the bill. At stage 2, the minister promised to work with me in advance of stage 3, as did Conservative members. My amendment 156 reflects recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to define short term lets, which I have done. Amendment 156 does not, however, has been frequently claimed, fetter the discretion or autonomy of planning authorities in any way. It merely makes a modest change to the framework for considering change of use, regulations that have been in place since 1997 and which are universal in their application across Scotland. Amendment 156 makes a modest change to the gatekeeping functions, determining what is and what is not a change of use. Any change of use to a commercial short term let is a material change of use today, in almost every instance, and planning authorities are dealing with those applications today. Local flexibility, which has been at the centre of many people's concerns about this, does not arise from planning law. There is not a single piece of the planning bill of the 1997 act to my knowledge that only applies in certain parts of Scotland. Scots law is for Scotland. Local flexibility does not arise from law, it arises from plans and policies that enable planning authorities who are free to consent to as many or few applications as they wish, in line with their own plans and policies. My amendment does not change that one bit. Rachael Hamilton's amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. It sabotages the central purpose of amendment 156 by making the modest change that I have just outlined applicable only to so-called short term let control areas. I am sure that a phrase will be repeated ad nauseam by the SNP and the Tories to pretend that they have done something about this problem. By making the provisions of 157 subject of further regulations, the opportunity is then created for the vested interests in the short term let industry to influence those regulations in their own interests. That should be of no surprise to any member, since Airbnb was a member of the Government panel on the collaborative economy. We already know that some planning authority is not even interested in those so-called zones. Glasgow City Council argued last week that the zonal approach suggested by the Conservative amendment did not fit with the current policy. It would fail to protect the immunity of residents living outside of those zones who may be unaffected by unauthorised change of use to short stay accommodation, said a council spokesperson. All of which raises the question, if planning authorities are not interested in the provisions within 157, those so-called areas, when they are finalised, what are they to do? What if they think that those control areas are of no use to them? I accept the parliamentary arithmetic. Rachel Hamilton's amendment will probably pass, but I put to the Conservatives a compromise some weeks ago. I said that for those areas that are not to be short term let control areas allow them to enjoy some modest improvement in the law. Hence my amendments 157, A, B, C, D and E, to Rachel Hamilton's amendment, which are designed to allow planning authorities for whom control areas are deemed not to be the answer, a more straightforward means of identifying properties that are changing their use. In other words, if the minister and Rachel Hamilton are genuinely interested in local choice, provide one. Thank you very much, and I call on Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 157 and the other amendments in this group. There has been a growing concern about platforms such as Airbnb revolutionising the short-term renting of properties in popular tourist destinations. However, Scotland must be a welcoming country, and we must have flexible and affordable accommodation right across Scotland. Particularly in the major cities of the world, we have been experiencing this pressure. The main focus, of course, here has been on Edinburgh. Yes, hang on one second, Mr Hamilton, just one second. Mr Findlay. Declared an interest that started for contribution. That is not a point of order, Mr Findlay. It is up to each member to decide whether or not others would judge whether they have something to declare or not. That is entirely a matter for the member to decide. Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like many other MSPs, I do not have an Airbnb or a short-term rental. I thank Neil Findlay for being so considerate. Of course, the main focus in Scotland has been areas in Edinburgh, in particular the old town, and those areas have been weighed down by the burden of an increase in inward bound visitors. The Scottish Conservatives are well aware of the concerns of local residents and understand that situations of antisocial behaviour and a lack of housing are just two areas of concern, which Andy Wightman, in fact, talked to me about. Despite the lack of concrete data, we believe that there is anecdotal evidence to signify a regional variation, with Edinburgh, certainly, as I have mentioned, experiencing the highest concentration of short-term leptor. Would you mind just pointing the microphone slightly more towards you when you are speaking? It is on, but it is just there. It is red. Is that okay? Sorry, I interrupted in the middle of a potential intervention, but it is back to Rachel Hamilton to decide whether to take an intervention or otherwise. I will take an intervention. I am grateful to the member for giving way. I wonder if she will just admit to the chamber that what she is doing with section 157 is providing a wrecking amendment to the work of Andy Wightman, and if she is not wrecking the proposal that he is putting forward, can she explain why? As a Conservative, she is arguing for a more bureaucratic and time-worthy process. Rachel Hamilton Of course, I completely disagree with Kezia Dugdale. The amendment delivers a flexible approach allowing local authorities to give discretion to set short-term let control areas. I understand and we understand well the pressures that are experienced by residents. My amendment seeks to find a solution for local authorities to regulate in those areas that are saturated. I would have thought that Kezia Dugdale would have welcomed the amendment. I hope that Labour will eventually support it after they have heard what we have to say. I also thank the Government for working with the Scottish Conservatives to achieve that aim, Freudian slip. Furthermore, our amendment will devolve discretion to local authorities to create short-term let control areas as I have set out. The purpose of amendment 157 is to target the requirement for planning permission to the most pressurised areas where the local authorities can choose whether or not to promote short-term let control areas within which planning permission will always be required. Can I finish this section, please? Section 26b allows a planning authority to designate all or part of the area as a short-term let control area. In designated areas, the use of dwelling house providing short-term lets would be a material change of use of the dwelling house and would require planning permission. For clarification, a tenancy of a dwelling house or part of it where all or part of the dwelling house is the only or principal home of the landlord or occupier that does not constitute a short-term let. I will give way to Andy Wightman. She said that within the control areas such a change of use will always require planning consent. Is she not aware that that is the case right across Scotland today? The only question is about the materiality of that change of use. Therefore, her amendment does nothing for the vast majority of Scotland who will probably never use these control areas because they probably can be far too bureaucratic and will be subject to the rules that the Scottish Government deem appropriate in defining what a short-term let is. Unlike Andy Wightman, we are taking this situation very seriously and putting residents first, and also being a welcoming country and ensuring that we do create job opportunities and grow the economy. Moreover, my amendment seeks to deliver a flexible approach, which is the right one, allowing local authorities to be saturated by short-term lets to regulate, but on the other hand allowing for those authorities who do not have that burden not to be legally bound by regulation, my amendment clearly demonstrates a willingness to ensure a positive outcome for residents and communities, some of whom live in attractive and popular tourist hotspots. Andy Wightman's amendment 157A to E will, if supported by the Scottish Parliament, create a situation where all short-term lets that do not fall under any exemptions and section 11B will constitute a material change of use six months after the bill receives royal assent and so will require planning permission. Many owners and operators may find the use of property as a short-term let was unauthorised, putting them in breach of planning control, potentially exposing them to enforcement action. Should planning authorities be minded to take such action, of course, there will be a consequential burden placed on local authorities and the owners and operators in obtaining retrospective planning consent. To sum up, it seems to me that Andy Wightman's amendment has taken the kill approach, whereas mine is the cure approach. My amendment seeks to find a balance between happy tourists and happy residents, essentially driving tourism growth but protecting residents with regulation. Andy Wightman's amendment will kill off any future growth in tourism in areas that need it. My amendment provides a solution to local problems. I appeal to members to ceaseence and not to support Andy Wightman's amendment. Daniel Johnson I begin by thanking Andy Wightman for the huge amount of work and effort that he has put into this very important issue. I think that not only do we owe him thanks but the whole of the city of Edinburgh owes him thanks, because this is a city-wide problem in Edinburgh. I will make one observation that small observations are often the signifier of much larger change. If you look around the streets of Edinburgh and the main doors of tenements, you will see that key safes have appeared doorway after doorway. That is a sign of a much larger change of thousands of residential properties taken out of residential use. That has had a huge impact on the whole of the city, but particularly in my constituents. Rachel Hamilton says that we do not have data. Let me give her some data. In my constituency alone, 1,810 addresses are registered with Airbnb out of a total number of 35,443 addresses in total in my constituency. That is 5 per cent of all dwellings in my constituency. That has a huge impact on the city and why citizens in Edinburgh are saying that we are increasingly experiencing a Disneylandification of the city. It is changing the nature and affordability of living in the city. We have to acknowledge that Airbnb has changed from its original purpose. It is now a business that attracts investment and has impacts on people and the city. Of course, short-term, let's have their place but not to the extent that it has had in Edinburgh. The reality is that we are seeing average house prices cruise towards £300,000 in the city. We have to regulate that. That is why Andy Wightman's amendment is proportionate and will make a difference. Quite frankly, Rachel Hamilton's amendment is deficient because it is reactive and not proactive. It is simply shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and gives no additional powers and no meaningful change to local authorities to regulate planning in this critical area. I urge members to vote for Andy Wightman's amendment because it is critical to ensure that we do not have this disproportionate change of use, taking houses out of residential use and putting them into business use. The city needs it and I urge people to vote with that in mind for the sake of Andy Wightman, and in particular members representing Edinburgh areas. That is an amendment that is required. Alex Rowley, to be followed by Kezia Dugdale. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is another group that illustrates the SNP Tory stitch-up of this bill that has often suffered. It may not like to hear it, but the new SNP Tory alliance is evident in this bill. We would like to express our support for Andy Wightman regarding the amendments. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance can shout out all rights, Presiding Officer. The fact is that we have seen once again a progressive proposal being halted by the new alliance editories in the SNP. That is the bottom line. We believe that the amendments are proportionate and are a proportionate response to the growth of short-term lets across Scotland, from urban centres to the highlands and islands. Unfortunately, they have been misrepresented as interventions that will prevent buildings from becoming short-term lets. In fact, they simply require a change of use with local authorities, the arbiter of the change, and air beam bees that are no longer someone's sole residence represent a change of use. They become a commercial entity and not a home. That is simply fact. Local authorities require a strong understanding. I have some empathy with Andy Wightman's position, but I want to ask the question because he is arguing that he needs protection. I hear what Daniel Wightman said about it being in Edinburgh, but if you look at Rachael Hamilton's amendment 1572, she talks about the let-control area. If you are right, that is about localism. A local authority can, if it chooses, designate the whole of its local authority as a let-control area. The same application would have, but they would still have to apply for permission. It is giving localism for local authorities to decide, but the outcome would be the same in the case of having to apply for a change of use. Are you saying now that you do not support that localism? I will come on to answer the specific point about Rachael Hamilton's amendment, but local authorities require a strong understanding of housing need in the local area. It is right that they should understand when a home undergoes a change of use and becomes a short-term let, particularly at a time when housing is in such short supply in many parts of our country. We are proud of Scotland's thriving tourism industry, and we consider the room-sharing and access to affordable accommodation that Airbnb has enabled as a positive contribution. However, a high concentration of short-term lets in a small area can have a negative impact on shared spaces and community cohesion. Local authorities understand the crucial role that tourism plays in local economies, and we trust them that when they, for their policy on short-term lets, form that policy, which must emphasise that it is separate to the amendment, they will reach a balanced position in the public interest. We do not support Rachael Hamilton's amendment in this group. The ineffective rent pressure zones are a case in point for why we should not trust ministers with those kinds of regulations. I urge the new SNP Tory Alliance to think again, vote in the interests of the people of Scotland and vote for Andy Wightman's amendment. I rise specifically to talk to section 156 and to oppose section 157 and commend Andy Wightman for his work in that regard. He has done it thoroughly over a number of months and years, doing the detailed work around the legislation, but also taking colleagues with him, providing opportunities for briefings, meeting with the industry every step of the way. He has done a very serious and thorough job in that regard. Section 156, amendment 156, I think, is particularly astute because it is not particularly radical. I urge members to look at the detail of that. It is not a crusade against the industry of Airbnb or other equivalent sites. It is very specifically to seek to curtail the proliferation of commercial lets. Those are instances in which we allow big companies or wealthy individuals to buy up properties all across the city for the sole purpose of putting them on the internet for short-term lets. Those are not residential properties, but they are businesses. The amendment makes no difference and has no effect whatsoever on individual citizens who want to rent out their own property for a certain number of days or months in the year or, indeed, a room within a house in which they live. That is not the effect of that amendment. It is simply to curtail the proliferation of commercial lets. I support it for three key reasons that I will run through very quickly. Airbnb is causing misery to countless numbers of my constituents across the city, particularly if you live down at the shore or on Leith Walk or off Easter Road, represented by Ben Macpherson, if you live in Portobello or Abbey Hill, represented by Ash Denham, if you live in the grass market or the new town, represented by Ruth Davidson, all of whom will vote for Rachael Hamilton's amendment this afternoon. That is anti-social behaviour on Macs. The second reason that I think it is important to look at those measures in detail is that they are distorting the property market. When big companies come in and buy up those properties, it makes it harder for working people to live in this city. If you go on to the internet today and look at how much it costs to rent a one-bedroom property in the grass market on Easter Road, it is £850 for a one-bedroom room in this city. That is pushing people out of the city and beyond its limits, all because of people buying up properties for the purposes of what they are voting on today. Finally, another reason to support it, perhaps the whole point of Airbnb is to provide tourists coming to this city the experience of a home. What it is really like to live in the capital city of Edinburgh, all of that is lost when it is commercialised in the way that we are talking about today. I say to Rachael Hamilton that, far from killing off tourism, it is providing a sustainable alternative because it is protecting a means by which people can come and really experience what it is like to be in this city as a resident and as a citizen. I believe that amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. It bulldozes right through the very purpose of amendment 156 by introducing control areas. It kicks the can down the road into some grass called One Day Maybe. There is no scrutiny over it whatsoever about the size of the control areas, how they would operate, who would decide that it is far too late. SNP MSPs in this chamber should be uncomfortable in their seats today, voting with the Tories for this bill to go through. However, there are some members who should be more uncomfortable than others. Those who represent areas where working people are being pushed out of them, where families are being priced out of their communities, where communities are being hollowed out by a largely unregulated industry. That is a small but important change that I commend Andy for the work that he has done and I hope that constituents of those who vote for this amendment today hold their members to account for the next opportunity. Neil Findlay has been followed by Mike Rumbles. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Andy Wightman has done exactly the right thing on this issue, and he has got support from a great number of people across Scotland because he has worked diligently on issues to address. The very real concerns raised by constituents in areas where short-term lets are impacting on the lives of people in the community are issues that are very real in Edinburgh. I doubt that there is any representative of the city who is sitting in this chamber at the moment who has not had representations on the impact of short-term lets. That is an issue across the world. I was in Barcelona last year and there is a massive movement reacting against that in Barcelona. What we are seeing today is the Government and the Tories coalescing to dismiss the concerns of people and communities whose lives are affected by this sector. No-one is saying that Airbnb and the like should not exist, but we have to ensure that they are regulated and that local authorities who know the local housing market are that regulatory body. What we are seeing in this city just now is working-class people being driven out of the city that cannot afford to live in it, and representatives of the city need to look themselves in the mirror. I tell you, having seen this first hand, there is a growing social movement across the world against this type of letting. It will come here, it will grow here. This is just a marker for what is going to happen, because the more that people are driven from the communities that they should be living in, there will be a big reaction against it. I will tell you this. The Tories' SNP should take note. Mike Rumbles I, too, would like to thank Andy Wightman for his efforts with the subject. It is well recognised that Andy Wightman has bought an area of knowledge to the chamber, which is to be welcomed. In my view, Rachael Hamilton's amendment is indeed a wrecking amendment. Unfortunately, it prioritises—it does not do more than that—the tourist industry against the rights and the individual residents. Rachael Hamilton wants to see short-term lets in pressured areas. What it does not do is affect the blight that some short-term lets have made on individual residents not living in so-called pressured areas. If residents do not live in a pressured area, it can still cause immense problems for those individuals, and we have heard something about that already. We are all being told that control areas are meant to cover pressured areas. That measure is being made clear in this debate, and I listened carefully to what Rachael Hamilton had to say. It is kicking the can down the road on this really important issue, and we should have addressed it a long time ago. I was very pleased that Andy Wightman has addressed it the way he has it, so disappointing that the Government in coalition this time with the Conservatives. I have a sense of deja vu. In the third Parliament, that always happened. Just for those members who were not here in the third Parliament, the SNP Government and the Conservative Party always got together to push things through. I am only stating it. Take the credit where it is due. You managed to achieve that. I congratulate the Conservatives for the influence that they had over the SNP administration, and I am astonished that I seem to be getting this... Let's hear the member, please. The smiles from the front bench is amusing, I have to say. We used to accuse the UK Government of kicking cans down the road on Brexit, but this is kicking the can down the road with Government regulations yet again. I have never thought that it is a good idea to leave regulations to ministers. It really is our role in this chamber, in Parliament, to put what we think is right on the face of the bill and not kick the can down the road, not leave it to Government ministers to produce regulations that we cannot amend. I am, of course, very aware of the concerns that there are in certain parts of the country, and particularly here in Edinburgh, about the effects on local communities of houses and flats being used for short-term letting. We need to consider how we can address those concerns while not undermining the economic benefits of tourism, particularly in parts of the country, where they want to increase holiday accommodation. Let me be clear about a number of points here. First of all, Mr Wightman in his speech said that what he was proposing was a modest change, but his amendment would require significant numbers of new applications, costing up to £4.6 million for applicants and up to £1.7 million for planning authorities. I will finish at this part first, Mr Wightman. Let me be clear. It is for planning authorities to determine what constitutes a material change of use of any property. It is Andy Wightman's opinion that a change from a sole or main residence to short-term letting should always be considered material, but that has not universally been the position taken in planning decisions and appeals. A lot may depend on the location of the property and the impact and amenity and on housing availability in the area, which is not the same in all parts of Scotland. I will take Mr Wightman. That has been one of the bits that has bedevilled the conversation. The minister put out a revised financial memorandum that has topped of millions of pounds, yet the only people who can determine whether a change is material are planning authorities. Therefore, planning applications are required in all instances, now and even after the amendment. In his consultation on short-term let's issued in April 2009, he said that there is no definition of what constitutes a material change of use from residential to short-term letting. Whether a material change of use is occurred and planning commission is therefore required is a matter of fact in the grief of the relevant planning authority to consider on a case-by-case basis. All those applications should be coming into the planning authority anyway, and my amendment makes no difference on the volume. That is an argument that has been rehearsed in my office on a number of occasions. Mr Wightman will not shift in his opinion, and I talked about his opinion on all of that. Let me move on. Separately from the planning bill, the First Minister announced a Scottish Government consultation on short-term let's on 29 April, which will run until 19 July this year. That seeks the views on the regulation of short-term let's to enable councils to control the number of let's and ensure that they make a contribution to the services that they use, ensuring proportionate and appropriate regulations and enforcement. That is intended to help deliver a programme for government commitment to give local authorities the powers that they need to balance the needs of their communities with the economic benefits of short-term let's. We have heard a lot today from members from Edinburgh, and that does not surprise me in the least. I think that what is right for Edinburgh is not a Scotland-wide difficulty. That is why I support Rachael Hamilton's amendment. That gives the flexibility to local authorities in different areas, and it gives flexibility to parts of areas within those local authorities. What is right for poor tree might not be right for caithness, as I have found out in the conversations that I have had with members. What is right for Aberdeen city might not be right for parts of Aberdeenshire. That is why we need the localism and the flexibility with the amendment that is being put forward by Rachael Hamilton, which would allow planning authorities to consider the impact of short-term letting in every part of their area and implement measures where they are needed, exercising their local knowledge and judgment to address short-term letting proportionately. It is always so frustrating when members in this chamber speak out in favour of localism that, when it comes to the crunch, they are often willing to vote against localism. That, I am afraid, does not wash with me. I do not support Andy Wightman's amendment 156 or amendment 157A to E, which would wrap around short-term letting control areas to perpetuate the situation in which all short-term letting across Scotland would require permission for change of use. Amendment 219 would bring the provisions of section 11B into effect in six months after royal assent, and that would leave very little time for landlords and planning authorities to prepare for the changes that ever version of section 11B is agreed to. I call on members to reject the amendments in this group in the name of Mr Wightman and to support amendments 157 and 159 in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Thank you very much, minister, and I call on Andy Wightman to wind up in this group. I am beyond despair at this debate. We have properties in this city, in Aberdeen, in Portree—I know that my mother lives in Portree—there is a problem in Portree right across Scotland, which has not applied for planning consent and should be applying for planning consent. Nothing in my amendment changes the fact that they should be applying for planning consent. It merely makes it easier to identify the circumstances in which they should and prevent planning officers from having to stand at properties and gateways working out who is coming and going. I have had two unregulated flats in this city. One is occupied by an 83-year-old woman. She is the last resident in her stair. She keeps her front door open—not the main door on the road. One day, a naked woman runs in, followed by a naked man.  That is the kind of breakdown in social order that this is providing in places that people regard as home. Or a 50-year pupil who needs her English to get into university does not get any sleep because, in the flat above, there is a bunch of probably rugby fans parting all night. She fails her exam and she does not get into university. That is why I feel passionately, as do many other members, that this requires a more effective solution in the planning system in which it is already in the planning system. This debate has been bevelled by misinformation. Rachel Hamilton talks about flexibility, and Michelle Ballantyne talks about localism. There is nowhere in the town and country planning use classes in Scotland or in 1997, or the planning Scotland bill, or the 1997 act in which any planning authority is allowed to opt out of planning law. The flexibility comes in plans and policies. Here is an enforcement action from Glasgow City Council in a flattered dwelling, saying that it is contrary to policy CDP 10, meeting housing needs and supplementary guidance SG11, meeting housing needs, contained within the city development plan adopted in 29 March 2018. Glasgow has designated areas of the city. It can call them short-term control areas if it wants, and it has said that there shall be no short-term lets in it. That is plans and policies that do that. If Aberdein or Portrait or Paisley wants lots of them, they are free to do it. Nothing in my amendment prevents that. Given that the minister has a consultation in this very area, is it not advisable to wait for that where we could, in fact, end up with a much better situation like there is in Paris, where the Airbnb has to be the main residence, it is only let for a third of the year and has to be registered? Is there not a possibility that we could get a much better system? I thank the member for that intervention. She should have read the consultation. The consultation is on a proposal to licence the operators. It is not a consultation on any changes to planning law. Just like the alcohol licensing, the first box that you have to take on an alcohol licence if you want to have a licence is have you got planning permission from the premises from which you intend to operate? That will be solved by a more effective planning regime that determines whether those uses can take place and then by a licensing regime that makes sure that the operator is a fit and proper person. That is what that is, and I welcome that. The process has been disappointing to put it mildly. Promises to work together have been broken. I was told in fact that Rachel Hamilton's original amendment, number one, which was lodged back in December, was not even endorsed by her party. I first became aware of amendment 157 when it was handed to me by a Conservative MSP minutes before I was due to have a meeting with representatives of the short-term let industry. Worse still, they had been given a copy of it before I had. I was put in the rather strange position of knowing nothing about what was in the amendment and the short-term let industry, who had flew up from London, knew all about it and thought that it was a wonderful compromise. It is no surprise that the Conservative party's tourism spokesperson had nine meetings with the industry and lodged one amendment to the bill. I had six such meetings during which I worked hard to find some changes that would address industry concern. We were actually working— Sorry, Mr White, when Rachel Hamilton wishes to make a point of order. I seek guidance on this one. I would like to state that I have not had nine meetings and I would like to see the evidence that Andy Wightman has to suggest that I have had nine meetings with the short-term let sector. I note that the member wishes to correct the record. There are a number of methods of doing so that are open to both members. In this case, she has alerted the member to her own feelings about the matter and it will be up to the member, Mr Wightman himself, to decide whether to take action. Mr Wightman, I have examined the register of interest and I am happy to share with her the nine occasions on which she met the industry. She has not met nine times of the Airbnb but the wider industry. I worked hard with the industry. We were even at the point where we had drafting changes. Amendment 157 lands in front of us four weeks ago. Airbnb, home and away, all the other industries have lobbied hard against regulation of this out-of-control industry all across the world. They have what they want. They have an anodyne amendment that is worse than the status quo. It requires further regulations by ministers, which will no doubt be the target of further industry lobbying to water them down. I know from conversations that I have had with planning officials and constituents in Lothian and throughout Scotland in Portree that the reform would be very welcome. Amendment 156 would be welcome. Unfortunately, it has been sabotaged by an amendment by Borders-based Tory MSP Rachel Hamilton, who, with the connivance of the SNP Government, has lodged to the amendment, restricting my modest reform to short-term let control areas that, as I say, would be worse than the status quo. I am happy to give way. Michelle Ballantyn? I have said that I have empathy with you. I have read everything that you have sent. I have had a huge amount of empathy on a personal level debate between the two, but the way that you are phrasing it now has just lost my empathy. This is about trying and I would like Mr Wightman to explain for me because you started this by saying that this already existed and that everybody who had short-term let should have already been applying under planning law. The authorities have not forced that. If that is what you believe, I personally, having looked at it, do not necessarily agree with you, but they have not enforced it. You are now saying that they all want this and that it would help them, but if you are arguing that they already have it, why have they not been using it? I am now thoroughly confused about what your position is. Mr Wightman? Andy Wightman? I think that the Conservatives have been confused about this all the way along. The Town and Country planning use classes Scotland order 1997 cites 11 classes of property from businesses to residential institutions, assembly and leisure, etc. Short-term let's are a suey, generous use class. That means that they exist outside those 11 classes. That means that prima facie are a change of use and only planning authorities can make a determination as to whether that change of use is material and therefore a planning application is required in all instances. One of the problems that we have in this city—and I know that people are operating and changing use illegally—is that people are operating and changing use illegally. That is why there are so many enforcement actions and why Glasgow is doing it. Glasgow is doing it effectively because it has good plans and policies. All that I am arguing, as Chris Douglas said, is a modern reform to remove this very difficult-to-apply materiality test. I will wind up there.  It has frightened folk here in this city and across Scotland who are just letting out a room in their home into believing that I was intent on shutting down their enterprises. I know because they wrote to me with that concern. I was very pleased to correct the record and say that this will have nothing whatsoever to do with you. It is deeply disappointing that I have been unable to secure improvements in the planning system for those who are affected by the blight of short-term let's. Although our SMP and Tory MPs may be pleased with themselves this week, I will continue to fight to defend the residents of Scotland in everywhere I can. Thank you very much. Before we move to the vote on amendment 156, I would just point out that, if amendment 156 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 157 or any of the amendments to amendment 157 that is 157A to E. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 156. The result of the vote on amendment 156 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 35, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I would call amendment 157 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Rachel Hamilton will not be able to call amendments 156. The question is that amendment 157A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a 30-second division on amendment 157A. The result of the vote on amendment 157A in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 34, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 157B in the name of Andy Wightman. Andy Wightman to move. Andy Wightman not moved. I call amendment 15C in the name of Andy Wightman not moved. Does Mr Wightman wish to move either 157D or E? I would love to, Presiding Officer, but I won't. I will not. Unless any other member wishes to move them, we will not be moving 157D or E. The question is that amendment 157A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote on amendment 157A and again this will be a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 157A in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 87, no, 33. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We will turn now to group 20, which is the assessment of health effects. I would just point out to members at this stage that that was clearly quite a long group. We are running slightly behind. I call amendment 198 in the name of Monica Lennon in a group on its own, Monica Lennon, to move and speak to amendment 198. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to move and speak to amendment 198 and refer to my register of interests as I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. At stage 2, I argued very strongly that planning has a unique role in protecting and improving public health. I presented a number of ideas to maximise the potential of this planning bill to make a real difference. At stage 2, I successfully amended the bill to allow an assessment of the likely health effects of national or major developments to be considered before planning permission is granted. That is a requirement on Scottish ministers to make regulations and my amendment 198 is an add-on to strengthening this. 198 sets out what the regulation should take account of. I will run through those as briefly as I can, but I just want to stress that this amendment is about making sure that public health is central to the planning system. It is about adding this requirement on major developments and national developments. We are not talking about very small-scale or household applications. We are talking about things like the consideration of cycling and walking routes, access to green space and play and recreation facilities. I move on this because the health of people in Scotland must be at the forefront when planning our communities. We all agree that that has to include physical and mental health and do that in a way that we really try to tackle health inequalities. What would the assessment do? It would look at things like infrastructure provision, including housing quality. All colleagues will know from their own case work that issues of poor quality housing such as people living in colds or hard-to-heat homes—homes that are damp or cramped or have little outdoor space—can have a negative impact on a person's health. Respiratory problems are something that comes up quite a lot. That needs to be taken account in large-scale developments. On transportation, the requirement would be to look at active travel, public transport provision and car dependency. Members will recognise the benefits of active travel, go far beyond just positive physical impact. Walking cycling is good for our mental health, is better for the environment and reduces the transport costs. Members might be wondering why we need to have amendment 198. I would say that it is because we cannot take for granted that those provisions are being properly addressed under the current system. Last year, Scottish housing news covered a report entitled progress on low-car neighbourhoods in Scotland. It found that housing developers are locking people into unhealthy and expensive car dependency by failing to provide infrastructure or enable access to healthier travel options, including walking cycling or car sharing. That has been an issue that came up a lot in stage 2. I know that it is important to access to healthcare. When I was working as a planner, when we talked about infrastructure, it was often about drainage and thinking about roads, not so much about healthcare. However, I know from speaking to colleagues across the chamber that there is increasingly where new housing has been added on, people are finding that they cannot get GP appointments and that GPs are closing waiting lists. That is why, when we discussed it yesterday, that consultation with the NHS and the chief medical officer is really important, because we are not joining up the system. The provision is about healthcare services, looking at the opportunities that we need in communities. When we talk about building units, as house builders do, or building houses, we need to build communities. It is about how we build in strong, resilient and cohesive communities where we can bring people together and create the opportunities for participation so that we do not see the rise in social isolation and loneliness that we are seeing. Another issue that came up in healthcare at stage 2. I know that some colleagues thought that that is not really for the planning system to consider in great detail, but access to public toilets. I know that many members again raised that issue. Because of poor and limited access to public toilets, with people in Scotland who have disabilities and who are not able to get out and participate in our communities, there are particular issues around women and older people. Again, we want all of that to look at. The regulation also looks at green space and children's play areas. We know that green space has a positive impact on mental health and well-being, and children's play is vital for their development and well-being. It is about putting things into the heart of planning and decision making. We must give people the right opportunities to live a healthy lifestyle, and that includes the choice to cycle, to walk, to access green space and play and be active in their community. Planning has the power to do that. Amendment 198 has the potential to positively contribute to public health and improve the health and well-being of all of our communities. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I cannot support the amendment. The list of matters to be considered is too prescriptive and should not be set in stone without further consideration and consultation. Although each of the items in the list is clearly valuable in the right circumstances, the wording of the amendment means that all of them must be considered in every health impact assessment. The world health organisation is clear that screening and scoping should be used to ensure that health impact assessments are appropriate to the development proposed. The public health reform agenda is considering place and public health reform and the place principle, a key consideration for planning, which is about services and assets coming together to deliver better outcomes for people in an area. We would expect that work to inform regulations about health impact assessments. It is therefore premature to include a set of criteria for the regulations at this stage, and I would ask members not to support the amendment. There has been some talk this afternoon about amendments and accepting Tory amendments and others. In those regards, apart from Rhoda Grant, all the Labour amendments were lodged in the last two days available, having had seven months to discuss their ideas if they wanted, which they chose not to in many cases. That shows the fact of why we have not supported some of those amendments, but we have supported many of Rhoda Grant's amendments because of the time available to communicate and to get things right. I am not able to force folk to come and engage. Some folk have, and I think that the bill has benefited from that communication. Can I ask Mark Llyr, if she wishes to wind up or add anything else at this stage? Yes, I do. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to pick up on that final point, minister, I was very privileged to be part of the committee at stage 2 and as someone who worked as a planner for 12 years across industry and in the public sector. I have to say that I found it very disappointing that what the minister was actually doing in terms of the meetings that he was having with selective MSPs was very much cherry-picking.  I would like to continue because I see some people in the gallery who actually cared very deeply about those issues. I, Andy Wightman and others, including Graham Simpson, worked very hard and in good faith to find points of agreement. We have obviously been betrayed by Graham Simpson, as we have seen over the past two days. However, when I and other colleagues did have individual meetings, I did not see them come to those meetings with an open mind. I think that they have been very selective. I am sure that Rhoda Grant is very grateful that you have picked it out, but we are a team here. If we can stick to the planning bill, I am sure that you have your own issues in your own group. However, the planning bill actually matters to people in communities and some of them are in the gallery. The minister will reflect back on stage 2 and he will know fine well that he was being very selective of what he was willing to discuss. He had a closed mind on equal rights of appeal, which we are going to get to. However, if I can just pick up on 198, because that is what we are talking about right now, I think that that was quite a pitiful response. It shows how timid this Government is actually being when it comes to the opportunity to actually transform the planning system. If we step back and look at the challenges, that are facing the country, which are many, we know that we hear about record levels of investment in the NHS and record levels of workforce, but people's health is not improving. It is the outcomes that matter. I do not know where the Cabinet Secretary for Health is, but she will know that Audit Scotland is saying that. Jeane Freeman So, Ms Lennon is quite incorrect to say that people's health in Scotland is not improving, and I advise her to look at the statistics and understand health in Scotland before she makes such random comments. I do not think that it is random to care about the health inequalities that persist in Scotland. Despite the success of health secretaries, we are not seeing real improvement. In fact, we have the Auditor General warning that the future of the NHS is not sustainable. Let us join up and see what we can do through the planning system to help people to live longer and live well in their communities. We have very well established frameworks around environmental impact assessment minister. If we can do that kind of assessment, I am sure that the education secretary knows much more about it, but if the minister does care to listen for a moment, if we can do environmental impact assessment, why cannot we do health impact assessment to the same standard? The minister has talked about being overly prescriptive. We cannot leave those matters to chance. I am very disappointed that the minister is not willing to accept or support 1998, which is simply an add-on to what is in the bill, which would make it clearer what we expect across all our planning authorities. Communities want that kind of transparency. How else is the minister going to satisfy colleagues, such as Alex Cole-Hamilton and Ian Gray, who know of examples in their communities where people cannot get a doctor's appointment? They have the keys to assigning a new house, but they cannot get to see a doctor. I would be happy to give way to the minister shaking his head. That is the reality. Those are the practical solutions that we need. I am willing to give way to the minister— Ms Lennon, I think that it is time to conclude the remarks and to pressure withdrawal of what I need. I think that we have done that point. Ms Lennon has spoken eloquently about the health effects related to housing development, but not all national and major developments are housing. How would all of that fit and be relevant to other infrastructure such as flood prevention or renewable energy? That is the point that I would make again. Ms Lennon chose not to engage. If she had engaged, we might have come up with something that was workable. Unfortunately, she chose once again not to engage. Monica Lennon, I do not remember receiving an invite, but what I would say is that I have worked with an— I still know— Ms Lennon, I think that at this stage we have had a full debate on amendment 198. I would conclude your remarks and move to a vote on what I need. I know that many planners who work across Scotland are more than capable, if they get the right guidance, of making sure that they can hold developers to account so that they can ask developers to provide that information. The ministers might have more faith in Scotland's planners. I am conscious of the time, and I am afraid that we are running rather behind schedule. Before we move to the vote, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion. I will address this to the minister for Parliament. I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by up to up to 30 minutes. The risk of incurring the wrath of colleagues for the second time in 24 hours had so moved. Thank you very much minister. This is my request that the minister is moving this motion. The question is that the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes are well agreed. If we are not agreed, we will have to move to a vote. We will have a vote on the motion. I will put the question again, and I will make sure that there are extra resources put outside condiments for Mr Lyle to get his blood sugars up. The question is that the Parliament agrees that the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes are well agreed. We are agreed. Thank you very much. We are going to move now to the question on amendment 1.98. The question is that amendment 1.98 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed, so we will move to a vote. This will be a one minute division on amendment 1.98. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1.98 in the name of Monica Lennon is, yes, 32, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 1.28 in the name of the minister? Already debated. Minister to move amendment 1.28. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1.28 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We are going to turn now to group 21, which is renewable energy infrastructure. Can I call amendment 199 in the name of Claudia Beamish, grouped with amendments 203, 220 and 221? Claudia Beamish to move amendment 199 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move amendment 199. The aim of this amendment is that renewable energy infrastructure be required to be included in commercial and domestic new builds over a certain scale, as highlighted in the amendment, after a certain date. I've used the Town and Country Planning Act 2009 definition for major developments, referring to housing and business and general industry specifically. The amendment builds on the one that I was delighted to have passed at stage 2, which obliges local authorities to consider renewable energy in the formulation of local development plans. I'm clear that in this climate emergency it is imperative that the Scottish Government sets clear guidelines as to what is acceptable in terms of how our dwellings and our commercial properties are both heated and lit. However, I have not gone so far as to bring forward an amendment to say that every newly built house and commercial building must only have renewable energy installed, tempting as this was. This would be the obvious and logical next step, and nothing in this amendment prevents this happening, I hope, in the near future. In relation to those larger developments, Scottish ministers will, by regulation, require an application for planning permission for a major development to include renewable energy infrastructure, and the regulation on the aims of this amendment must be drafted and laid before the Parliament two years after Royal Ascent. That would enable the construction industry time to plan for this deadline and to send a clear signal to manufacturers about where it should be going in the climate emergency. This shift can be part of the just transition with appropriate strategic planning and relevant training strategies developed. There is also a consequential amendment to make the regulation subject to affirmative procedure. This amendment is supported by Scottish renewables who agree that this would give important support to small-scale renewable energy projects such as the solar pvn hydro as well as for Scotland's renewable heat industry. I now move to amendment 203 on small-scale renewables, and this amendment removes the planning permission requirement for small-scale renewables. Certain small-scale renewable developments will automatically be permitted development and therefore not need planning permission. For the purposes of subsection 2A, small-scale renewables means renewable sources of energy, including anaerobic digestion and biomass, solar, wind or water, with a total power output of 20 megawatts or less. I stress that that includes. The crucial element is that this is an accurate description of what constitutes small-scale renewables from the Renewables Obligations Scotland Order 2009. Ministers are to set appropriate exemptions to regulation, which might be for a listed building or a property in a conservation area, for example. The permitted development system is under the development orders that ministers can make under section 30 of the 1997 act. In terms of precedent, there are some amendments at stage 2 that sought to piggyback on that system as a way of saying that planning permission should be granted automatically or could not be classed as permitted development in certain circumstances. An example is John Finnie's amendment at stage 2, 164, on gypsy traveller sites. I have included the regulation-making powers for Scottish ministers to adjust exemptions and circumstances as they see fit. The whole amendment is subject to the affirmative procedure through consequential amendment 221. The amendment is also supported by Scottish renewables. They note that the small-scale renewables sector urgently needs attention in response to the closure of the feed-in tariff and the limited utility of the smart export guarantee. I hope that this is an area that the Scottish Government will lend a hand in. In this climate emergency, I hope that all members will accept the necessity of supporting this straightforward amendment that will enable a speedy and reasonable and proportionate way to enable residents to transfer to ways of heating and lighting their homes and contributing to the transformational change that we all need to act on as we shift to net zero emissions. The Scottish Government is fully committed to ensuring that the planning system contributes to achieving a net zero economy. Although I commend the intentions behind amendments 199 and 221 on renewable energy infrastructure, I cannot support the introduction of provisions that could add complexity and regulatory burden, which cut across the proper consultation and public engagement that is already under way. That includes a review of the energy standards of the Scottish building regulations, and we are considering next steps to further enhance the energy performance of buildings. That will include investigation of the continuing role of renewable technologies in the delivery of new buildings with very low energy demand and emissions. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcomes of that review with primary legislation that could then not be changed without a further bill. Amendments 203 and 220 seek to impose a requirement on ministers to introduce permitted development rights for renewable energy infrastructure for both domestic and non-domestic properties. However, permitted development rights are already in place for the majority of technologies listed, and we have previously consulted on others. Further, the amendments seek to introduce permitted development rights for development that could fall within the category of major developments, for example, a 20-megawatt wind farm. Such permitted development rights would remove public consultation, including pre-application consultation, if they were to be progressed. We have already committed to consulting on a work programme for expanding permitted development rights following the bill, alongside a sustainability appraisal that has been progressed with input from a wide range of stakeholders, and we should not pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. Finally, through Energy Efficient Scotland, we are putting in place a regulatory framework to make it the norm to invest in improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions from existing buildings. We are also taking steps to strengthen our policy framework for low carbon heat and will publish a heat decarbonisation policy statement and action plan in summer 2020. In short, those amendments cut across a wide range of work that is already under way to support renewable energy infrastructure, and I would ask Ms Beamish not to press them, but she can be assured that I will continue to engage with her on those issues as I have done in the past. I find it somewhat perplexing that the minister says in relation to my amendment on small-scale renewables that it would make for more complexity if I understand him to be saying it correctly and that what I am attempting to do is to make things much simpler for many constituents, particularly those whom I know of in my region, who, as I will say, are of grid, who have wanted to move to low carbon sources of heat and of light and have had to go through quite onerous processes. I do not really understand this part of what the minister is saying, so I am hoping for an intervention. Again, Presiding Officer, if there had been earlier discussion around some of that, we could have got that absolutely right. What Ms Beamish has in relation to her amendments here would make things much more complex in some cases at points where we want to get rid of that complexity. Again, I would say that this is one of the reasons why it is always good to talk about those issues at early stages so that we can help to get that right. Claudia Beamish, to conclude and to press or withdraw amendment 199. I am not going to press this amendment because I do not think that it is something that should be voted down. I am disappointed with what the minister is saying, but I do not intend to press it because I would be prepared to and have worked on other issues in the lead-up to the bill and others with the minister and with other ministers. Frankly, the reason that I put this in at a late stage was because I actually thought that it was quite straightforward, but I am not prepared to have it voted down. I will have dialogue with the minister about the future, and he has highlighted one more point that he did highlight, which I was keenly aware of, which made me hesitate as to whether to put the larger infrastructure amendment that I have argued for in relation to building regs. I am aware that there are issues within building regs that are going to be consulted on, so that gives me some cause for optimism. Does any member object if Ms Beamish withdraws amendment 199? Can I call amendment 176 in the name of Lewis MacDonald, which was already debated yesterday? Lewis MacDonald to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are going to move to a division on this. This is a first division after a debate, so it will be a one-minute division on amendment 176. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 176, a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 176 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is, yes, 33, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 177 in the name of Lewis MacDonald Lewis MacDonald to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a 32nd division on amendment 177. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 177 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is, yes, 32, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 178 in the name of Lewis MacDonald Lewis MacDonald to move? Not moved. That is not moved. Can I call amendment 179 in the name of Lewis MacDonald Lewis MacDonald? Not moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 179. The result of the vote on amendment 179 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is, yes, 32, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 129 in the name of the minister? Minister to move. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is a 32nd division on amendment 129. The result of the vote on amendment 129 in the name of Kevin Stewart is, yes, 87, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I am going to turn now to group 22. There will be a short break after this group, by the way. Group 22, determination of applications, Brownfield land. I call amendment 130 in the name of the minister. Minister to speak and move. Amendment 130. Presiding Officer, amendment 130 removes an amendment that was brought forward at stage 2 by Alex Cole-Hamilton. I spoke against it then and I believe others now agree that it goes too far. I fully recognise the importance of the green belt, our policy for this to set out in the Scottish planning policy, and planning authorities have a key role in applying this locally. We would naturally expect that anyone who wants to develop in the green belt would set out how their proposals fit with national and local policies, and the planning authority would take that into account in making their decision. However, there are many problems with Mr Cole-Hamilton's approach. It is very restrictive, definitions are unclear and it could effectively ban all development in the green belt. The green belt is important but it is not a blanket restriction on development. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I look forward to hearing the minister's remarks to expand on that ludicrous claim that this would lead to complete ban of any development on the green belt. My amendment has accepted at stage 2 merely forces conversations to be had about the prioritisation of land use in any local authority area. That is not what Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendment said. The green belt is important but it is not a blanket restriction on development. What would happen, for example, if someone who lives in the green belt wants to extend their home in a modest way? Should there be a ban on sensitively designed car parks that allow people to access the countryside around our cities? Perhaps most worryingly, that could lead to councils reducing their green belts and creating new, more flexible designations to allow for appropriate and necessary development. I fully expect that, as we take forward our review of the national planning framework, we will have a proper debate on the future role of green belts in Scotland and that we will also look closely at the issues of greenfield versus brownfield development. In the meantime, to avoid imposing an overly restrictive and unworkable set of requirements on authorities, residents and businesses, I call on members to support amendment 130 and remove section 14d from the bill. I move amendment 130. The minister has admonished several members in this debate thus far for not coming to the table to discuss the workability of amendments before this Parliament. He says that my approach in 14d goes too far yet he has made no overtures to me to talk about making this workable or to finding an amendment that would deliver on what I sought to do at stage 2. I want to take my opportunity to address a number of the points that the minister made in his remarks in support of amendment 130. He said that it would be impossible for somebody who lived on green belt to apply an extension. My amendment says that the developer has to demonstrate why it would not be possible to make that development on existing brownfield land. Well, if you are a homeowner looking to make an extension and you do not own the brownfield land that may be available several miles from your house, then it is impossible to make your extension on that brownfield land several miles from your house. Presiding Officer, we created the concept of green belt and brownfield for a reason. This section that I brought in was in response to a problem that is particular to Edinburgh but that is not unique to Edinburgh. My constituency of Edinburgh-Western has, over the last decade, experienced a rampant proliferation of housing development, some of it on greenfield and some of it on much-loved natural heritage. Liberal Democrats are not instinctively or ideologically opposed to housing. We recognise that Edinburgh needs new housing. We support the growth of Edinburgh's housing but in the right spaces and on an intelligent basis. Just two weeks ago, the SNP-led administration on Edinburgh City Council, along with other members of other parties, green-lighted a much unwanted development on the Camo estate. That will see a loss of much-loved areas of natural heritage, not green belt, I should add, but only because the SNP-led administration changed its designation in 2016. The garden district at Gile, which was again green-lighted by Edinburgh City Council, will see the proliferation of 2,000 homes on areas already designated as green belt. The point is that we need to engender discussions around that. We cannot just have a lip service commitment to the idea of green belt or brownfield if there is no legislative imperative for councils to receive representations from developers as to why there was no other way of building on brownfield site. There are many areas of deindustrialised areas in Edinburgh, crying out for regeneration, for the development of the much-needed houses for mid-market rent and social housing, which, frankly, developers are cynically not looking to, because they know that they can build mansions in greenfield land in my constituency instead. I would ask the members to reject the amendment. It is important for instilling a conversation at a planning level about the use of greenfield. It does not lead to a ban of any development whatsoever on greenfield land, and I ask the Parliament to reject the minister's amendment. I supported Alex Cole-Hamilton at stage 2, but I think that this is an example of where we need to look at what we have passed. It comes down to the words that are in the bill at the moment, so let me read them out. Without prejudice to the generality of subsection 1, where an application is made to a planning authority for planning permission for development on land designated as greenbelt land, a planning authority may not grant planning permission if the applicant has not included in the application a statement setting out why the development cannot be achieved on land, the planning authority consider brownfield land. So, let's think about that extension. How are you going to manage that? Then, the brownfield land that was considered and why it was not considered suitable, you have to show that you considered a piece of brownfield land. How on earth is that achievable for a small-scale extension or a conservatory or something like that? Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful. Again, this point was made by the minister that anyone living in greenbelt land who had a house, an existing house, who wanted to build an extension, would have to give a representation to the council as to why it was impossible for them to build on brownfield land. The argument that they would make quite reasonably to the local authority is that that brownfield land is not attached to my house. Graham Simpson I simply read what was passed at stage two, the brownfield land that was considered. You have to have considered a piece of brownfield land if you want to extend your house. I am not against the principle of what Alex Cole-Hamilton was trying to achieve, but I think that here is another example of where members just have to accept that maybe they did not get things quite right at stage two. I have done it and I know that people have been trying to contact Alex Cole-Hamilton to discuss this. He could have requested a meeting with the minister at pay as he did not do that, and that is to be regretted because we could have seen improvements rather than vote this down. I call on the minister to conclude. We have to work with what we have got. Section 14d requires that planning authorities could not approve any application for development likely to have an adverse effect on any intrinsic natural or cultural heritage value of the proposed greenbelt land. That is a very high bar and does not allow authorities to consider the benefits of the proposals. For example, facilitating access to the countryside. Section 14d would also conflict with section 25 of the 1997 act, which sets out that decisions should be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning authorities must have the discretion to appropriately weigh up relevant issues in making decisions. Beyond that, definitions, as are, are unclear in section 14d. There is no statutory definition of brinefield land, and local authorities are not required to designate it, so it is not clear how an applicant could know what land is considered to be brinefield by the planning authority. There is also a difference between designated greenbelt land and greenfield land. There can be brinefield land and a greenbelt, for example, old quarries or derelict farms, which could very well benefit from redevelopment. As it stands, 14d is a guzzle. Please back the amendment to remove it. Thank you. I apologise, Mr Rumbles. I think that it is like we know just as I called the minister. I have called every other member who wishes to contribute, and I will sum up shortly where we have reached. Before we do that, the question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. That will be a one-minute division on amendment 130. The result of the vote on amendment number 130 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 88, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. At this stage, we are five and a half hours into this debate altogether. Members may have noted that we have passed the extended agreed time limit by another five minutes. I exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate on that particular group to continue. However, just members know that we are roughly than 35 minutes behind schedule. We may catch up some of that time. I am still going to take a short break up to 10 minutes, but if members can be back before that, we will start sooner. So a short break, a short suspension of up to 10 minutes. I think that the main participants in the next group are here, so we will resume. Group 23, assessment of environmental effects. Can I call amendment 200, in the name of Claudia Beamish, grouped with amendments 181 and 219? Claudia Beamish, to move amendment 200 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 200 in my name. The amendments aim to bring climate change considerations more firmly into the process of determining an application for planning permission for national development. Amendment 200 states that, before planning permission is determined, a planning authority must consider the development's life cycle, greenhouse gas emissions and the impact that we will have on our emissions reduction targets. Amendment 219, I have mentioned before in relation to earlier amendment to the national planning framework part of the bill, as it is consequential to both. Defining life cycle emissions as the development's construction operation and decommissioning, and this rounded approach is correct in my view. I had a similar amendment at stage 2 of this bill and I have made adaptions following the minister's comments before removing major developments from this requirement would be an improvement and save duplication. Members will also recall that I had a similar amendment in the national planning framework section of the bill and this amendment 200 can work alongside that one. The duty in this amendment is placed on the planning authority. Again, I highlight the context of the climate change bill in the process of agreeing a target of net zero emissions by 2045 and this Government and other parties having declared a state of climate emergency in Scotland. In light of this, we must see national development proposals being explicitly considered in this framework and weigh up the long-term cost implications and climate change impacts of development proposals against potentially competing considerations, which may well be more short-term economic considerations. This can lead to an approach more aligned to sustainable development and help to guide us to make decisions that avoid investment that will not serve us well in the future and could indeed well lock Scotland in to unsustainable developments. Thank you very much. I call Graeme Simpson to speak to amendment 181 and the other amendments in this group. At stage 2, I attempted to get a very similar amendment through, but it was voted down by mistake when Monica Lennon voted the wrong way when she didn't intend to. It was an error and she admitted to that later, so that was unfortunate. However, if that had gone through and it had been in the bill, I would have been changing it because, like the previous section that we debated, it did go too far. I have brought this back in a different form. It establishes the principle that development needs to result in positive outcomes for biodiversity. It should provide some assurance to communities that decisions to approve development will be positive for nature. We will not be supporting Claudia Beamish's amendment 200. Environmental impact provisions appear elsewhere in the bill, such as my amendment 181. If that gets through, we will be supporting Claudia Beamish's amendment 219, which defines life cycle greenhouse gas emissions as the emissions associated with the construction operation and decommission of a development. There is an example of a brief speech. I have already supported Claudia Beamish's amendment that would require assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for national developments as part of the preparation of the national planning framework. I believe that it is the right time to undertake that assessment to introduce the same requirements for individual planning applications for the same developments that risk duplication, uncertainty and delay. For that reason, I do not support amendments 200 and 219. I can, however, support Graham Simpson's amendment 181. I have already brought forward amendment 173 to provide that securing positive effects for biodiversity will be a key outcome for the national planning framework. In addition, our strong track record in environmental assessment in Scotland means that consideration is already given to biodiversity where appropriate in determining individual planning applications. I am happy to include that additional wording. I thank Claudia Beamish for winding up in the group and to press a withdrawal on amendment 200. I will indeed press this amendment. I find it disappointing that the minister is not prepared to accept amendment 200. It seems that there is a logical progression. If the national planning framework is identifying the concerns in relation to the life cycle of those developments, it is only appropriate that it is assessed in terms of an individual planning application as well. I think that that would put an onus on local authorities to carefully consider where they are going with those issues. I intend to press amendment 200. Thank you. The question is therefore that amendment 200 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. This will be a one-minute vote. Members, please cast the votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 200 in the name of Claudia Beamish is yes, 32, no, 84. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 180 in the name of Lewis MacDonald? The question is that amendment 180 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members, please cast the votes now. This will be a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 180 in the name of Lewis MacDonald is yes, 32, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 131 in the name of the minister to move? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members, please cast the vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 131 in the name of the minister is yes, 87, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I turn now to group 24 on access panels. Can I call amendment 168 in the name of Jeremy Balfour in a group in its own, and Jeremy Balfour to move and speak to amendment 168? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 168 in regard to the pre-application consultation process for major developments. As I am sure that many members are aware, the pre-application consultation is often the starting point, but an important starting point in making sure that what is delivered perhaps months or years later is suitable and correct. My amendment is called upon access panels where they are available within a local authority to be consulted on and at this stage. I think that that is particularly important in regard to major developments, because too often disability issues are not looked at and not identified in an appropriate way. Often planners and developers will talk about wheelchair access, but as all of us are aware, disability is much greater and wider in that, and often those issues are not addressed. I think that amendment would be something that would help developers and those who have disabilities to engage properly in the process, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about it. The Scottish Government absolutely supports the principle of disabled people being involved in shaping the places where they stay. I have introduced an amendment to require planning authorities to engage early on the development plan with disabled people. However, I cannot support the amendment as it stands for a number of reasons. As I noted at stage 2, access panels are not statutory bodies and not all authorities have access panels that cover the whole of their area. Mr Balfour's amendment would require consultation after the application for a major development had been received by the planning authority when it is difficult to make any significant changes. Applications for major development include engineering works and energy projects, where access panels may feel they have little to add. I consider that engaging disabled people at the pre-application stage on the right kind of developments will provide a better opportunity for issues around access to be considered before finalised proposals are brought forward. We will be bringing forward proposals for changes to development management procedures, including pre-application consultation following the completion of the scrutiny of the bill. I am happy to commit that engaging with disabled people will be part of those proposals, and the Scottish Government will certainly highlight the role of access panels where they exist in that process. I would ask Mr Balfour not to press his amendment. Jeremy Balfour, to wind up in this group and to press or withdraw amendment 168. I thank the minister for his helpful remarks, intervention and light of those. I will not be pushing the amendment in regard to that. Thank you very much. Does any member object if Jeremy Balfour withdraws amendment 168? No-one does. That is great. Can I call amendment 181, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 200, to move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 182, in the name of Lewis MacDonald, debated yesterday with amendment 175? Lewis MacDonald moved. Thank you. That is moved. The question is that amendment 182 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We turn now to group 25, conditional grant of planning permission. Can I call amendment 132, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments, as shown in the groupings and the minister, to speak to the other amendments? Presiding Officer, my amendments in this group are just minor changes to tidy up the wording of the provisions relating to changing places toilets. We have also taken the opportunity to ensure that these essential facilities are accessible and publicly available. I thank members, including Jeremy Balfour, Mary Fee and Angus MacDonald, for their input in all of that. It has been very welcome. The other amendments in this group have laudable aims, but they do not work in practical terms. I wish that Mr Cole-Hamilton and Ms Beamish should engage with me and officials on those amendments, as Jeremy Balfour and other members have done. At an earlier stage, we might have been able to agree on something that actually worked. Taking Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendment first would be simply daff to set standards for digital technology and primary legislation, because that technology changes very quickly indeed. Fibre to the Cabinet, as was mentioned in the amendment, is not even the gold standard today. Openreach routinely offers fibre to the premises for any development of 30 or more houses, and that would not comply with the proposed requirement. I will give way. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I accept that he may be speaking to my previous amendment, but I noticed that there was an error to the original amendment on reviewing it for our whip sheets just this week. You will see that I have submitted a correction, which explains that this will take fibre to the premises if my amendment is adopted. Presiding Officer, the Government is committed to ensuring that each and every premises in Scotland has access to superfast broadband through partnership between local authorities, developers and telecoms operators. We have provision in planning policy and in building standards to support that, but operators have to plan their work in different areas, and imposing broadband requirements on planning permission could prevent the delivery of housing if the timetables do not line up. As I said, it is very unwise to put that into primary legislation when things change in a regular basis. I will give way to Mr MacDonald. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. The recent development dubford in my constituency has been hit by the fact that inappropriate infrastructure was laid, which does not allow my constituents in that area to benefit from broadband internet connections. Although I am open minded in relation to the amendment, can the minister advise how that could potentially be dealt with better in future to ensure that new developments are catered for appropriately? Absolutely. We have to deal with all of that in terms of changes to building standards and planning policy. I am committed to doing that, but setting some of those things in primary legislation would cause quite some chaos as technologies change. If Mr MacDonald wants to write to ministers around the situation at Dubford, I am willing to ensure that that goes into the process to ensure that similar mistakes are not made again. Increasing cycling for transport and leisure is a key policy commitment for the Scottish Government. It has contributions to making both health and wellbeing and combating climate change. We are putting £80 million per year into active travel provision, and we are funding cycling facilities and workplaces, public places and schools and colleges through the places for everyone fund and the cycle friendly suite of programmes. However, I cannot support the introduction of such detailed requirements in primary legislation, which have not been subject to any assessment or consultation to consider whether they are appropriate, the costs of the additional space that is required and the possible practical difficulties that might arise. I appreciate that there are powers to amend the provisions, but I do not think that it is enough to justify introducing such detailed requirements in this late stage of the bill. Ms Beamish would also want the provisions to come into force within one year of royal assent. That is very little time to develop and consult and regulations to put that right. I do not support Mr Cole-Hamilton's and Ms Beamish's amendments, and I would ask them not to press them and move amendment 132. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to speak to amendment 3, I believe that he has already called members' attention to the fact that a correction slip has been issued to or circulated members on this amendment. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and my apologies again for the error in the original drafting of the amendment. I hope that members now understand that this amendment would see fibre optic cable taken both from the telephone exchange to the cabinet nearest the development and then on from the cabinet to the development itself. Members will see that this is titled amendment number 3, and that is indicative of how early I laid this. Yet, at no point have the minister or officials attempted to approach me on the subject to address. I think that Mr Cole-Hamilton, if he goes back to his office, will find that Andy Canaird, the bill team manager, contacted the office to see if there was anything that Mr Hamilton wanted to talk about in terms of not only his, but other amendments. So apparently it is now the case that Opposition members must come cap in hand to the Government and not have concerns that the Government may legitimately have with members' opposite amendments that they would seek to raise with them, such as the arrogant approach of the Government to this bill and the stitch that they have made with the Conservatives. I want to make progress, Mr Dornan. All of us in this chamber will have had meetings with organisations such as BT Openreach and other providers about the exciting new benefits of 5G technology that will set to revolutionise things such as homeworking and home gaming, entertainment and the rest of it, and connect isolated communities to our broader society through the benefits of digital communication. This amendment is about future proofing. All of us probably have new-build housing developments, as Mr MacDonald described, in our constituencies that were built without adequate IT infrastructure utility provision. There are other provisions for utilities on the face of bills. Throughout the test of time, with a certain degree of trepidation, I will take an intervention. I apologise for not raising this before I have only just read what is before us. It says nothing about what should be at the other end of the fibre. It only talks about what is at the end of the development. Therefore, it would be perfectly proper to meet the requirements of the amendment for the fibre simply to go down to the main road to the cabinet and no further. In that sense, it seems a rather inadequate amendment. I think that, from the member's intervention, he can only have skim-read my amendment, because it indicates that this would do both things. I advise him to pay more attention. This is about future proofing. Kirk Lieson, in my constituency, was built without adequate broadband provision to the cabinet or to the premises. For a community just six miles from this location to suffer broadband speeds of less than half a meg, in 2016-17, when it was addressed, is, frankly, appalling. I think that it is important to put things like this on the face of the bill. We are not talking about a revolution in technology beyond the fibre optic for the foreseeable. If that comes, we can repeal this aspect of legislation. I am winding up, but I will take an amendment from Mr Mac. I am grateful to the member for giving me that. As I said, I was open minded in relation to that. The concern that I would have is that, if we had been debating this, say, maybe 10 years ago, we would have been talking about copper and we would have been talking about exchange to premises, such as, for example, existing kingswells in my constituency, which is now causing great difficulty in retrofitting the infrastructure to ensure that those properties are adequately connected. My concern would be, as Mr Hammond talks about future proofing, but if technology moves on in the future and retrofitting were to be required, it could potentially put residents and local authorities at great expense in order to change that. Would he accept that as a potential flaw in this amendment? Every single premises in the country that is currently served by copper for the receipts of their broadband will eventually have to have those retrofitted and their pavements dug up and the rest of it. All I am suggesting in this amendment is to future proof that, so that new bills to which we all accept that developers will default to the use of copper, because it is cheaper, will have to be retrofitted when we roll out 5G technology. It is an important step to date and it signals that we are a future-minded country, and I urge the chamber to support it. Here in the Parliament, we are lucky to have the benefit of safe bike storage, which is within what I have stipulated in my amendment, within 30 metres of the building. In fact, it is actually, as we all know, under the building. We also have the following. We have showers and what is termed in the amendment water closets rather old-fashionedly and hand-washing basins and continuous supplies of hot and cold running water. Changing rooms are provided with seating, facilities to enable a person to dry any specific clothing and any personal clothing or effects, suitable and sufficient facilities to enable a person to lock away any clothing that has not taken home, the person's own clothing that is not worn during working hours and the person's personal effects, on-site provision and availability of cycle maintenance tools. Those facilities I have stipulated, as I say in my amendment. We have led here by example, and I am clear that others should have the opportunity to have similar arrangements as they cycle or indeed walk to work or run. Having good facilities is one of a range of measures that would encourage people to cycle to work, and I hope that members will support this amendment on that basis. I have to say that the personal experience of being able to use the facilities in this Parliament has made a significant difference to my ability to cycle to work and that of many others who I know who also do so. There are, of course, other issues such as on-road segregated cycle lanes, presumed liability laws, good cyclist and motor vehicle driver education and much more, but those are for another day. Today we can do something to enable many people who would like to cycle to work to leave their bikes safely and shower and change like we can here, leaving towels to dry and locking away our kit. I have crafted this amendment so that ministers can alter the minimum number of employees and the arrangements for them, as well as the description of the cycling facilities that are expected. I have deliberately not gone below 10 employees so as to not make this amendment too onerous, but this can be changed in regulation by Scottish ministers. Those arrangements are based on the Bream good practice standards, which are well respected and well recognised. On the basis that we are in a climate emergency, I note what the minister says about one year from Royal Ascent, but surely that is long enough in view of the fact that the Bream good practice standards are already in existence. The minister last yesterday made, frankly, a woefully ineffective and unadventurous statement on the cycling future. That is an opportunity to do something positive and really robust that will help. I say, let's go to it. I speak in favour of the amendments 1, 3, 2 and 1, 3, 3 in the name of the minister. That is an amendment to the amendment that I put down. I also thank Mary Fee in particular for the support in bringing forward those issues. The bill will do many things and, no doubt, academics and lawyers and historians will look back in years to say where was it effective and where was it ineffective. Although the bill has not had a lot of playtime within the chamber and perhaps not a lot of air, I think that looking back, that will be something that will radically change how we see development and things going forward in the next 10 to 20 years. For those of you who are unaware, change in place toilets open up facilities for older people and for younger people and for disabled people to be able to go and do what you and I take for granted. That will have an economic benefit for the whole of Scotland where we see them, but, more important than that, it will allow families to do things that they are not able to do. If you are unsure what a change in place toilet looks like, we have the privilege of having one here within the Parliament or for those of you who are going to the Royal Highland show over the next three or four days. They have taken the step ahead of the bill to put them in because they see the benefit that it will bring them and that it will bring the people that go to that show and other facilities. I again thank the minister for tidying up my mistakes and I do hope that this will give a clear sign that this Parliament wants families wherever they have, whatever disabilities we have within it, to be able to go out and enjoy facilities across the whole of Scotland. I have already paid tribute to a number of MSPs who have been involved in the change in places toilet campaign. It would be remiss of me not to mention PAMAS, who have been at the forefront of campaigning for a very long time and are finally seeing their efforts come to fruition not only through the bill itself but also through the recent consultation that has been put out by the building standards team. Some things are much better left not to primary legislation but to secondary legislation regulation. I think that Mr Cole-Hamilton has possibly got entirely the wrong end of the stick here because who knows for how long fibre will be the top-notch technology to people's homes. I have no idea how that science is moving forward. I do not know if anybody in this room does, but if that is in primary legislation it is going to be difficult to make that change. Mr MacDonald, in his retort to Mr Cole-Hamilton, was absolutely right because we now have a situation in certain parts of the country where it is very difficult to make the change. I would never accuse Stuart Stevenson of skim-reading anything. He is a man who knows the mind, you shy of everything, because he reads a lot, Presiding Officer. The question therefore is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 133 the name of the minister to move? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 134 the name of the minister to move. I move. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 3 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton to move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We are going to move to a division on amendment 3. This will be a one-minute division. Members will cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton is, yes, 24, no, 89. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 202 the name of Claudia Beamish to move or not move? Move, Presiding Officer. That is moved. The question is that amendment 202 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. This will be a 30-second division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 202 in the name of Claudia Beamish is, yes, 29, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 135 in the name of the minister to move? It moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We will turn now to group 26, Hill Tracks. Can I call amendment 14 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendments 15, 16, 17 and 18, and Andy Wightman to move amendment 14 and speak to all the amendments in this group? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 14. For many years, there have been concerns over the proliferation of bulldo's tracks. Order, please. Keep the quiet noise down. Sorry, Mr Wightman. Built without planning consent to poor standards across some of our most scenic landscapes. A campaign by Scottish Environment Link and led by Rambler Scotland has been running for many, many years. It has undertaken meticulous and detailed work to catalogue the abuse and identify how to affect greater public scrutiny, oversight and regulation. It thought that it had some success with the previous planning minister, Minister Derek Mackay, but he disappointed with timid and ineffectual reforms back in 2014. Now, a new report changing tracks documents the on-going problem and the continuing failure of the planning system to deal with it. Now, as the law stands at the moment—I have Mr Mackay's attention, he will recall—any private way, which is the technical term for such tracks, built for the purpose of agriculture or forestry, is a permitted development under section 30 of the Town Country Planning Scotland out in 1997. Last to say, the principle of development is conceded by law and there is no requirement for full planning consent. Now, I just want to underscore an important point about my amendments 14 to 18. Not one of those amendments affects the permitted development rights that currently exist for agriculture and forestry. I have decided to pick my fights carefully and picking fights with the farming and forestry industry is not something that I had the capacity or inclination to do, so they can rest assured. Any private way, built for the purpose of field sports, however, is not a permitted development and requires full planning consent. In addition, in a national scenic area, there is a requirement that all private ways, with the exception of approved forestry schemes, for whatever purpose need to apply for full planning consent. In response to public concern in 2014, the law was amended by Mr Mackay to require all private ways under the permitted development regime to be notified to the planning authority. However, the remain permitted developments, and there is no means of ultimately refusing their construction. I have lodged amendments 14 to 18 to provide another modest reform of the planning system, to improve transparency and to make some tracks subject to full planning approval that are not just now. None of those amendments bans tracks. In that respect, Scottish Renewables are wrong in their briefing to suggest that they do. All tracks built by members of Scottish Renewables will have been through a full planning consent regime. That is not about whether there should be tracks or not. That is about the process and about how much democratic scrutiny should be applied to proposals that have the capacity to be very damaging. Hill tracks continue to be built for field sports, despite the fact that they require planning consent due to a loophole in the law, whereby the applicant claims that they are for agricultural purposes, which, of course, is a permitted development. They say that there is a few sheep on the hill and that it is very hard for a planning authority to refute, for example, and that it is extremely difficult for them to refuse consent on that basis, and that they would be most likely to end up in court if they did. That loophole, therefore, is closed by amendment 14. It does not change the intention of the law. It merely ensures that the current system in which field sports tracks should apply for full planning consent is respected in practice and cannot be avoided. Amendments 15 to 16 provide that any track that is constructed in national parks on sites of special scientific interests and in Scotland's two national parks will require full consent. Within Scotland's national parks, there has been growing concern about the proliferation of tracks. The Cairngorm national park's current management plan contains a presumption against hill tracks. That was a management plan that was incidentally signed off by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham. However, the park authority does not have the capacity, the planning powers, to ensure that that can be put into effect. Amendment 15 will provide that. Finally, amendment 18 is interesting. National scenic areas are the only designated site where all tracks, with the exception of approved deforestation schemes, require full planning consent. That is the situation now. In fact, that has been the situation since 1987, when the then Scottish Development Department issued Circular 9 1987. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind, enacted the Town and Country Planning Restriction of Permitted Development, National Scenic Areas Scotland, direction 1987. My amendment, and I hope that Conservative members are listening, my amendment merely transfers the good works of Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind, into primary legislation. A fitting legacy, I am sure, Conservative members will agree. I hope therefore that Conservative members can at least support amendment 18, which merely transfers Malcolm Rifkind's intentions into law. If those amendments are passed, they will make no difference to the permitted development rights for agriculture and forestry outside the designated areas covered by amendments 15 to 18. It is worth reflecting on the fact that a short pathway to provide access for wheelchair users to a beauty spot requires full planning consent, but a vehicle track bulldozed up the side of Scotland's prominent mountains does not. It's time that was changed. I move amendment 14. I call Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I wish to speak to those amendments regarding hill tracks and the creation of those tracks. For I do so, I should declare that I am a surveyor and also a member of the RICS who I think have responded to this. I should also refer members to my register of interest in land. Those amendments seek to amend the legislation on class 18 permitted development under the general development order. That allows for the formation, as Mr Wightman has said, an alteration of maintenance of private ways. However, the Parliament s