The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4921, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, that the Parliament agrees that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill be passed.

I must begin with a statement on Crown consent. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

I place on record my thanks to the Communities Committee and its clerks for their exceptionally thorough consideration of the bill at stages 1 and 2 and, in particular, to Karen Whitefield for her leadership, which ensured that that happened so successfully. I also thank my officials for their superb and continuing work on planning legislation. Finally, my deputy Johann Lamont, who is the best deputy that anyone could ever wish to have, has made an outstanding contribution to the bill's passage.

The year 2006 has been a watershed year for planning in Scotland. This year, all the consultation, engagement, policy development and debate have culminated in a parliamentary process that has laid the foundation for years to come. As I have said before, the planning system in Scotland is undergoing its most fundamental and comprehensive modernisation since its creation in the immediate post-war period.

I have been struck by the consensus on the bill's core provisions. Of course, legislation of this size, importance and complexity will raise controversial issues, but much of what we have proposed has been welcomed across the board. Few people, if any, have dissented from the introduction of a statutory national planning framework; of the revitalisation of development plans that embrace the ambitions of sustainable development; of the creation of a hierarchy in planning to allow more proportionate processes; of a tighter approach to appeals; of a raft of measures that will ensure that planning decisions take local people's interests fully into account; and of an enhanced enforcement regime.

Yes—there have been debates about the detail and some of the substance, and some interests feel that more could be added to the bill but, in general, all parties recognise that a great deal of the bill has got it right. I believe that it is a well- balanced package that contains measures that will promote efficiency and inclusion. It represents a bold and challenging programme of modernisation that will put planning back at the heart of Scotland's growth and development.

We need to remember three key messages as we reach the end of the legislative process. First, the purpose of the planning reforms is to improve the quality of outcomes. The best processes in the world are worthless unless they are used in a way that delivers what we really need: good-quality and well-serviced affordable housing; sustainable businesses that provide jobs and economic growth; and the infrastructure that is required to deal with our waste as cleanly as possible and to provide safe, efficient and sustainable modes of transport. Our modernisation measures should help to unlock planning's potential.

The national planning framework is a key element in the reform package of the planning system. I am strongly committed to ensuring that all interested parties are fully engaged and involved in the preparation of the second national planning framework and that participation arrangements are inclusive, open and transparent. Before that process begins, I will publish a participation statement that will set out when and how it will take place and the steps that will be taken to ensure that the public are fully involved. I expect that formal consultation on the scope and content of the second national planning framework will begin early in 2007 and that the consultative draft will follow in the autumn.

A crucial feature of the bill is that it will place on planning authorities a duty to exercise any development planning function with the objective of contributing to sustainable development. A similar duty will be placed on Scottish ministers in their preparation of the national planning framework. Scottish ministers may issue guidance on that to planning authorities. The preparatory work that has begun on the statutory guidance for sustainable development is focusing on an analysis of existing published material. We intend to consult on the draft early in the new year.

The second key message that I want to emphasise is that one of the most important lessons of the past few years has been that proposals are always improved when there has been extensive engagement with and consultation of everyone who has an interest in them. The Communities Committee commended the Executive for the range and extent of its engagement with all stakeholders as the modernisation proposals were developed. It has been hard work, but the broad consensus behind much of the package reflects the value of that engagement. A central feature of our vision for the modernised planning system is that early engagement and discussion—not least on development planning—are the keys to success.

The reinforcement of the central role of development plans in guiding and shaping the development of our towns and cities and in ensuring that local people and other stakeholders have a wide range of opportunities to influence change in their communities is crucial to the success of the reform agenda. Plans must be up to date and communities must be able to engage at an early stage in the process if we are to create a successful Scotland that will grow and develop in the right places at the right time.

My final message is the inevitable comment that the passage of the bill is just the beginning—it will take a great deal of effort to turn the bill's ambitions into reality. As with all modernisation that is initiated by primary legislation, many of the fundamental measures—if they are approved by Parliament—will take time to come into force. An intense programme of modernising and updating regulations, circulars, statutory guidance, Scottish planning policies and planning advice notes will need to take place. Some of the groundwork for that has begun, but further consultation of and debate with stakeholders is essential in ensuring that the detail is practical and effective and in enabling key areas of planning modernisation to be implemented as soon as is practical.

However, the modernisation of the planning system goes much wider than just the changes that are being made through the bill. The bill's enactment should herald a change not just in processes, but in attitudes, behaviours and practices.

One minute.

The new planning system can and must be a positive tool that will add value to the communities in which we live and work by enabling the right developments to be built in the right places and by protecting what is special.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am in my final minute, so I cannot.

Planning's potential needs to be unlocked by all the organisations and individuals that operate and interact with the system. That means that applicants must demonstrate genuine willingness to consult, to understand the impacts of their developments and to comply with the decisions and conditions that are applied to them. Planning authorities must accept that planning is not just about control, but is the vehicle for driving forward their area's growth, prosperity and well-being. Communities must recognise that planning requires that hard choices be made and that early engagement will maximise their chances of influencing outcomes. There are many other agencies that must take on the challenge of contributing positively to planning.

The Executive has a key role to play in setting an example in its casework, giving a lead in its policy statements and promoting improvement through assessment and support. The challenge extends across institutional boundaries and requires the commitment of the Executive, planning authorities, communities, developers, business and the public. We should not be daunted by the task that lies ahead; instead, we should celebrate the success of the process so far and treat it as the platform for achieving the ultimate aim, which is to make planning a proactive force for positive and sustainable change.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill be passed.

First, I intimate to members the absence of Sandra White, who was told of a sudden family bereavement during the course of proceedings. She would have liked to be here for the debate. Regardless of whether members agreed with her work on a third-party right of appeal, I am sure that they will acknowledge the huge amount of effort that she put into it.

It has been a long and weary trek through a difficult bill that does not stand alone, but will amend the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. I say that for the benefit of members who have not been paying attention. I share John Home Robertson's sentiment that that is not an appropriate procedure for dealing with major legislation. That is our first concern, but it is not the only one.

I have expressed concerns previously about substantial amendments being lodged at stage 2 when the practice, although it is not mandatory, has been that evidence is not led on stage 2 amendments. The use of such a procedure, by whichever party may be in Government, could very well lead to flawed legislation. For example, the issue of national scenic areas was thrown into the pot at stage 2. For the moment, blame for that is to be laid at the Government's door, but I fear that such practice may lead to Parliament's being brought into disrepute. With no revising chamber, and helter-skelter timetables for evidence, committee scrutiny can become very superficial. I do not blame committee members for that—ministers must take cognisance of the fact that they should not be in the business of earning brownie points for racking up the greatest number of bills. What happened to the mantra "doing less better"?

That said, the Scottish National Party supports the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, notwithstanding the amendment in my name. I regret that such an amendment is the only competent process for dealing with a purpose of the bill. The minister has pledged that the bill will herald a new culture of openness, inclusivity, accountability and of playing by fair rules in a more consensual and less confrontational planning system. I hope that that is the case, but the jury is still out, given that amendments that would have ensured that the national planning framework—which will deal with major issues such as nuclear power stations and nuclear waste—would be scrutinised by Parliament were not agreed to.

In addition, amendments to provide for a limited third-party right of appeal, and even to provide a non-third-party right of appeal, were rejected even by those, such as Labour members, who claim to stand up for ordinary Scots. They were also rejected by the Lib Dems, for whom such a right is a matter of policy; but heigh-ho—they are willing to pay that price for a Mondeo or two. However, I warn the Lib Dems that, since the Dunfermline West by-election, Labour has woken up and is spilling the beans.

On high hedges, the definition in amendment 147 in my name referred to such hedges being "a barrier to light". That brings to mind the fact that Scott Barrie has introduced yet another proposal on his unfulfilled promise on high hedges. This Lib-Lab Government pledged to deal with the issue seven years ago. The Government's consultation received 1,300 responses, all of which came from people who wanted action, but the ministerial team—with all the statute-drafting expertise at its disposal—was unable to come up with one provision. Ministers think, however, that Scott Barrie will be able to do so. Of course, he will not. He would be better taking refuge behind one of those ubiquitous ever-higher hedges. As for the Tories, their failure to support my far superior amendment was just plain mean-spiritedness. Mr Petrie shot himself in the foot. He will need to be tougher with the doughty Bill Aitken next time and ensure that he knows how to play the parliamentary game.

On business improvement districts, I say "Well done" to Fergus Ewing and "Not bad" to David McLetchie. Small businesses that are already burdened with heavy-duty rates and water bills are to have another Labour stealth tax heaped upon them. Small businesses in our small towns and villages are already struggling against supermarket sweep. They already club together voluntarily to enhance their districts, so the Government should leave them alone—that is the view of the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland. In any event, I have news for small businesses: next year, they will be set to benefit from the SNP's commercial rates policy, under which all businesses that have a rateable value of £8,000 and under will pay nothing and many others will be better off.

At the end of this long and weary trek, what has been demonstrated to me is that we have to deal with too many bills and those that require more time, such as the bill that is before us, are frogmarched to the finishing tape. Because this Labour-Liberal Government needs to be seen to be doing something, it has introduced bill after bill and thus elevated legislation to the highest form of spin.

Finally, I say to Johann Lamont that I will miss her dearly. I do not always agree with her, but I admire her feisty enthusiasm, which never seems to evaporate.

I move amendment S2M-4921.1, to insert at end:

"but, in so doing, expresses regret at the inclusion of Part 9 on business improvement districts as it represents an additional onerous burden both financially and bureaucratically on already overburdened small businesses."

Listening to the Queen's speech yesterday, I was pleased to hear that a planning bill will be included in the forthcoming session at Westminster. It is good to see that, where Holyrood leads, Westminster follows. I am sure that Westminster will know where to come for expert and up-to-date advice on such legislation.

For many years, our party has called for improvements to the planning system because the current system holds up enterprise and often works against the individual applicant. Therefore, I was delighted to hear of the Executive's intention finally to introduce a bill to address those issues and I am pleased broadly to support the principles of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill.

Among the several issues that have undoubtedly received more attention, the first in everyone's mind is the proposal for a third-party right of appeal. Because the bill is designed to speed up the system, streamline it and make it easier to navigate, a back-end TPRA provision would go against its principles. However, I support strongly the right of communities and individuals to have their voices heard and to influence planning decisions in their areas. I am therefore pleased that such a right has been included at the front end of the process. Improved consultation and greater emphasis on community involvement will improve the experience for all.

Although I appreciate Jackie Baillie's intentions to please both sides with her amendment 123, it would have created an extra period of up to seven weeks in the process, which would have run the risk of allowing rogue organisations to undermine the process. Businesses that provide jobs and opportunities in our communities cannot be left waiting for that long. For that reason, my party remains strongly in favour of community interaction and consultation, but is opposed to TPRA. I am glad that the bill reflects our thoughts. However, the business improvement district fiasco will do nothing to engage businesses.

With environmental concerns currently on most people minds, the bill presents a great opportunity to improve the implementation of microrenewable energy technologies. Although we are encouraging individuals away from carbon fuels and toward green energy, microrenewables developments at present require the same level of planning permission as any other development. The bureaucracy, cost and paperwork undoubtedly turn a vast number of people away from using the new technologies. I therefore urge the Scottish Executive to include those technologies when it reviews the classification for permitted development rights. I also seek an assurance that recreational and play space will be protected under regulations.

The updating of local plans every five years will inevitably go some way toward creating a more flexible system. However, I am concerned about local authorities' capacity to carry it out. I am reminded of a previous debate in which we discussed the worthy introduction of free personal care for the elderly but attacked the Executive's ability to provide enough finances for the initiative. I would appreciate the minister's clarification on the issue and its being ensured that any increase in local authorities' burden as a consequence of the bill will be fully accounted for so that they will not be left struggling to find money. Understandably, I was deeply disappointed that my proposals for legislation on high hedges were not accepted, which seems to be another demonstration of the Executive's being unprepared to follow up its seven-year-old commitment to legislate on the issue.

The bill has some good aspects: I am pleased that it will provide a more structured and streamlined process, that there will be tighter consultation and that enterprise will be able to operate more effectively, which can only improve our economy. Public health and sustainable development issues must also be afforded priority. I emphasise the undeniable fact that legislation is only as good as the procedures for policing it. The issues that were raised in many of today's amendments are already covered by existing statutes, that are not being implemented satisfactorily.

Despite some serious differences of opinion, we have produced a good bill that will, I hope, fulfil the economic aspirations of all parties and eliminate the obvious shortcomings of the current system, which has blighted planning for too long. I thank my Communities Committee colleagues for the positive and healthy debate during the process. I wish Johann Lamont every success in her new role, in which I hope high hedges will be given the priority they deserve. I support the bill.

I welcome our coming to the end of long and exhaustive consideration of the bill. I extend my party's condolences to Sandra White, who has suffered a bereavement, and to my colleague Iain Smith, who has also suffered a bereavement this week.

I thank the many witnesses who came to the Communities Committee, all the people who participated in the forums, the clerks to the committee for their tremendous efforts, the officials from the Scottish Executive, the Deputy Minister for Communities and, last but by no means least, the convener of the committee, apart from anything else for steering us through all of Donald Gorrie's amendments.

The content of the bill is right and will bring about a sea change in the practice of planning and the public's perception of it. I agree with the minister that there is consensus on the core provisions in the bill. The new planning hierarchy has been welcomed in many quarters and it is right and proper to put the national planning framework on a statutory footing. I believe that the framework will undergo comprehensive and effective parliamentary scrutiny—I cannot imagine that that will not happen. In that vein, particularly close scrutiny will be required of the statutory instruments, regulations and guidance that will be made under the bill, to which the minister referred.

I do not envy the Communities Committee or its successor committee the task of scrutinising the considerable amount of secondary legislation that it will need to examine, although I can confirm that that is not why I left the committee. In particular, the committee will look for recognition of concerns about the need for appropriate flexibility on the boundaries of strategic development authorities, in line with what was said at stages 2 and 3. It will also consider carefully the notification requirements for local authority interest cases and developments or planning applications that are beyond the agreed development plan.

It is essential that the integrity of development plans be preserved. If it is not, the community involvement ethos will mean little. It is important to get into a cycle of five-year reviews with midway scrutiny. We have done a lot to clear away the clutter of small applications. Delegated powers such as those that have existed for a number of years in Scottish Borders Council and other councils should allow time for major issues to be considered and for development planning. However, many planning departments are overwhelmed with applications or, at least, challenged by their number, which is a result, I presume, of the Scottish economy's strength. Therefore, the Executive needs to address the resourcing of local authority planning departments and the training of adequate numbers of planners.

I, too, regret that it was not possible to include provisions on high hedges in the bill, but it is probably the wrong place for that. As I did at stage 2, I urge progress on that matter, because it affects a number of my constituents and people in other parts of Scotland.

You should be finishing now, Mr Robson.

I am just finishing, Presiding Officer.

Susan Deacon and Sarah Boyack mentioned post-legislative scrutiny. I agree that the bill is particularly apt for such scrutiny.

I welcome the passage of the bill, which will modernise attitudes, behaviour and practices in planning.

Members may not be surprised to learn that, for a number of reasons, I am delighted that we are about to pass the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. Its passage has been a long and sometimes arduous experience, but it has been worth the effort.

The Communities Committee went to great lengths to ensure that there was extensive consultation of all sections of Scottish society on the measures in the bill. That is particularly important because of the massive impact that planning law and regulations have on all aspects of Scottish life. The events that were held in the debating chamber allowed community groups to express their views on the bill and to share with committee members their experiences of current planning legislation. I am sure that the experience that was gained during that consultation exercise can be used in the passage of future legislation.

I do not have time to go into the detail of the bill. However, I am pleased that the Executive engaged positively with the committee and responded to some of the concerns that we expressed during stages 1 and 2. In particular, the front loading of the process, which is designed to ensure that communities are engaged with throughout the planning process—most importantly, from the start—will deliver better planning decisions. I also welcome the inclusion of the duty on ministers to ensure that sustainability is taken into account during drafting of the national planning framework. Such duties are now woven into the entire local and national planning process.

I certainly welcome the additional measures that have been introduced to ensure stronger enforcement of planning obligations on developers who fail to meet their obligations. Those enforcement powers, coupled with fixed-penalty notices and good-neighbour agreements, will provide an extensive range of tools that local authorities can use to deal with developers who, in the past, have ridden roughshod over communities. They will no longer be allowed to do that.

I take this opportunity to thank the committee's clerks: Steve Farrell and his team organised an excellent pre-legislative consultation process for the benefit of all committee members. They also spent many hours processing hundreds of stage 2 and stage 3 amendments. They were ably assisted by the legislation team, who provided much needed advice and expertise.

I thank the witnesses who came before the Communities Committee and gave us written and oral evidence. I thank all the people who helped to ensure that committee members had a complete picture of planning and of the impact of planning legislation in Scotland.

Finally, I thank the members of my committee. They were faced with a daunting challenge in scrutinising the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. I believe that they met that challenge and that we can say, despite the fact that there was not always agreement, that all elements of the bill received a fair hearing.

I will welcome the passing of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill today, although I am disappointed that the Greens intend to reject it. I respect their views on TPRA and the national planning framework, but when we can all agree that the planning system in Scotland needs to be modernised to protect some of our poorest communities, it is disappointing that the Greens will not be giving their support. Everyone in Parliament agrees that we need to modernise our planning system. I believe that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will deliver real and positive changes for all those who come into contact with the system, from individuals to communities and from planning authorities to developers. I look forward to implementation of the measures in the bill.

How to sum up and end such a long and thorough process in three minutes? I will do so first by thanking all my colleagues on the Communities Committee, all the MSPs who are not on the committee but who got involved in the process, and the clerks and other officials. I echo Christine Grahame in recognising the passion with which Johann Lamont has expressed her position throughout the process in her capacity as Deputy Minister for Communities. I wish her well—although perhaps not too well—in her new ministerial role.

I express my thanks and admiration to the many campaigners throughout Scotland who have long called for a fundamentally fairer system, but I express my regret that that is not what we are to have. I would like to knock on the head the notion that to give people greater rights and power within the system would somehow be an inhibitor to public involvement. I want to see the public involvement that the Executive says it is committed to. We would achieve that by giving people a system that they perceive to be fair because it treats them fairly, by giving them some power and by giving them some rights. That way, they would have a reason to get involved in the system at an early stage. That is what we should be achieving.

Even without that, I might have been prepared to settle for the bill if the other challenges that we highlighted had been received with greater flexibility and concern by the Executive; for example, if there was to be been proper scrutiny of the national planning framework, which I do not believe will happen, and if there had been stronger commitments on sustainable development, which might have been enough.

The Scottish Green Party will oppose the bill. We will do so fundamentally because, although we acknowledge that it will achieve one of the Executive's objectives—a more efficient system—we do not believe that it will achieve the other aim of introducing a fairer system.

I finish by agreeing with what Sarah Boyack said when speaking to the final group of amendments a few minutes ago. The Planning etc (Scotland) Bill is fundamentally important. Whether members agree with our position or do not give us the time of day, we all acknowledge the bill's importance. If the Communities Committee's successor committee in the next session has nothing but more new legislation to deal with—as we have had during this session—with no opportunity, beyond a few short ones, to conduct our own inquiries, it will not be able to carry out a full and thorough post-legislative scrutiny of the eventual act. I think that all parties should commit to ensuring that that post-legislative scrutiny is carried out with every bit as much thoroughness, time and consideration as has been given to scrutiny of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill.

I will start with two general points. I give credit to Margaret Curran for extending the time for considering the bill to longer than we have ever had, but it has clearly still not been long enough. We must face the fact that major bills need more time. We needed a third day to consider the bill at all properly. It is not appropriate to hear a constant barrage of comments from the chair to the effect that members have only two minutes and that they must hurry this and that. We must examine the timetables.

We must also examine a growing tendency: the bill has followed the pattern of many recent bills in that no non-ministerial amendments have been accepted. That is not in the spirit that many people supported in establishing Parliament, which was to be more consensual, to try to reach agreement and to co-operate. We must consider that, because the Executive does not have a monopoly on wisdom.

I will vote for the bill. I became interested in the subject and listened to many people who know much more about it than I do. I produced a pamphlet that mostly set out my interpretation of their views, which I converted into amendments, all of which were defeated. I may figure in "The Guinness Book of Records", because I had 70 or 80 amendments defeated at stages 2 and 3.

An opportunity to be more radical has been lost. However, I give due credit: the ministers and their civil servants have produced a bill that will achieve a huge improvement on the status quo, so I will support it.

Finance does not figure in the bill, but unless finance is adequate, we will not achieve the improvements that we want. There must be training, including on-the-job training, and more planners must be recruited. Communities must have support in the form of teaching and advice so that they can participate. If it is done properly, consultation costs money, so we must have real commitment to it and we must encourage communities to be more positive and creative and not to just be negative and oppose proposals.

Above all, we must restore public confidence in the planning system. As I am sure many other members have, I have received heartfelt pleas from people who have had really bad experiences of the planning system. Ministers must ensure that their well-intended provisions deliver improvements, which will mean that people gain the confidence in the planning system, which they do not have at the moment.

I think that everyone agrees that the planning system needs to be changed. If they are perfectly honest, most people agree that what we have in the bill probably represents the best and most of the middle ground between the two widely diverging spheres of opinion that we have seen.

In the short time that I have, I will highlight one or two points. Confrontation and mistrust need to be reduced. The bill will go some way towards doing that, but it will depend very much on the attitudes of people who implement it locally and of communities, which must approach the system with an open mind. Capacity building and support for that learning process will be essential.

The bill is a strong package that has been shaped by the Communities Committee, some of whose meetings I attended. It strikes the required balance. As the minister said, it will help to preserve special places. I ask the minister to confirm in her summing-up that the review of national planning policy guideline 5 will not reduce the protection of historical places and archaeological sites.

The bill is good and has been welcomed by everybody, including business, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am more than happy to support it.

It has been a long run for the Communities Committee and for members in the chamber. I have some sympathy with Donald Gorrie's views on the timings for major bills, how we allocate time for legislation in the round and how we use committees.

The Conservatives agree to the principle behind the bill, but one or two provisions require rectification. From the beginning, we believed that the review of planning had to be started with a blank sheet of paper and that things should not be bolted on to the existing system. People were right to talk about confidence building and simplicity. I welcome the minister's approach to making the system clearer. Indeed, when I conducted seminars for community councils and other groups on the proposals at white paper stage, I found that they were enthusiastic about the proposed simplifications. However, they still have difficulties with one or two areas, such as the definition of a community organisation in the legislation that governs community councils.

The front-loaded involvement of our communities in the process is essential. We have heard arguments relating to TPRA, but the Liberal Democrats, who have been saying in a campaign in north-east Scotland that TPRA is a matter of principle that they will not bow on, have been remarkably silent. It is strange that they seem to have bowed.

On the details of the bill, it was novel that a nationalist such as Christine Grahame should talk about a second chamber—a House of Lords for Scotland. I do not know whether the Scottish National Party wants to sell peerages to pay for the black hole in its budget. That said, she made good comments on the quality of legislation and how we can arrive at, be involved in and implement a national planning framework.

Obviously, the Conservatives agree that the seven years since Scott Barrie's member's bill did not come to pass—although apparently it is being reborn—has been a long time to wait for nothing.

I want to say something to Christine Grahame about business improvement districts. Businesses and communities have, of course, voluntarily come together to work in town centre partnerships. It is disappointing that David McLetchie's excellent amendments relating to BIDs were not agreed to. I remind the minister—who passed over the issue rather lightly—that the Federation of Small Businesses is vehemently opposed to the BIDs proposals. An important issue to do with the transfer of benefit is involved. Why should a person have to pay for something in Inverness that is delivered free in Wick? I cannot fathom that. We will support Christine Grahame's amendment on that basis. If the measures in the bill cannot be sorted out, it would be far better to remove them completely.

We must involve businesses in our communities and consider business development, but we must also consider infrastructure requirements, particularly if we want to address how to deal with affordable housing and other welcome developments. There is little in the bill about such things, although opportunities existed to cover them.

Sarah Boyack is right: there must be good post-legislative scrutiny not only of the bill but of all legislation that the Parliament passes. I was disappointed that she did not press her amendment on that.

Dave Petrie mentioned policing the regulations, which is a vital part of the process. Planning decisions throughout Scotland must be consistent. The current system has led to a lot of unrest and is confusing for everybody. If resources are to be made available, we must support organisations such as Planning Aid for Scotland that give support to communities, because those communities do not necessarily have the relevant expertise.

That said, we welcome the move to simplification, the new thinking and the new culture, and we hope that the regulations will be in the same spirit as the bill in that respect.

Finally, I look forward to seeing Johann Lamont at the Justice 2 Committee in the near future.

I thank the Communities Committee's clerks for their sterling work in the past months and all my Communities Committee colleagues for their work. This stage has been a long time coming, and I am thinking as I look at the clock that we are going to be free soon.

Everybody accepts that the current planning system is inadequate. Nobody is satisfied with it. Ministers believe that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will deal with those concerns. In that context, they have invested a lot of hope in pre-application consultation. The bill will go a long way to solving the current problems, but I regret that Sandra White's proposals on a very limited TPRA in specific circumstances have not been accepted.

Of course, legislation can do only so much. Changing the cultures of local authorities, developers and communities will be much harder than passing the bill, but it is required to make the legislation work. Furthermore, the shortage of qualified planners must be addressed urgently. The Executive must ensure that adequate resources are made available, or the legislation will not do what all members hope it will do.

Mr McLetchie and Fergus Ewing exposed the Executive's compulsory double tax on businesses. Ministers should have listened to the FSB on that issue.

I am not convinced that the position of Fife, which will be included within the overlapping boundaries of two strategic development plan areas, has been sufficiently addressed. I am still concerned that the wishes of Fife will be overruled by the needs of the larger partner authorities.

However, the bill has the potential to change the existing planning system for the better. Many of the organisations, businesses and individuals who gave evidence believe that it will do so, and the Scottish National Party will support the bill tonight, as we did at stage 1.

I will spend a few moments talking about the legislative process, as most members have already done. After almost two sessions of this Parliament, we are not getting it right. Unlike Westminster, we have only one opportunity to get legislation right. Stages 1 and 2 work adequately, but for a complex piece of legislation such as the bill, stage 3 leaves me profoundly dissatisfied.

I do not think that there is unwillingness to change, nor am I blaming the Executive. Rather, there is an inability to see how we can change. I have a couple of suggestions. We faced an avalanche of amendments at stage 3, some of which—Pauline McNeill's amendments on houses in multiple occupation, for example—had never been considered at stage 2 and on which no evidence had been led at stage 1. As it always does, the Executive lodged many stage 3 amendments, some of which were substantial. It would be helpful if we had a system whereby stage 3 amendments were accompanied by an explanatory paragraph from the member or minister. That might have gone some way to dealing with the briefings that we received on Pauline McNeill's HMO amendments.

The Presiding Officers also have a responsibility to be less flexible in what they accept as stage 3 amendments. For example, they should reject stage 3 amendments that could have been but were not lodged at stage 2. That would free up some time at stage 3 and force members to address issues earlier in the process, instead of looking at an issue two weeks before a stage 3 debate and then deciding to lodge an amendment, which I suspect is what is happening on some occasions.

We have a lot to do. We need to address those issues before next year.

Finally, I wish Johann Lamont well in her new role, although I warn her that it is only going to last until May.

We shall see.

I thank the officials in the Development Department and, more broadly, officials in my private office, parliamentary officials, the committee clerks, all the groups who engaged in the process, MSPs—particularly the Communities Committee members, of course—my minister Malcolm Chisholm, and Karen Whitefield, who did a sterling job, as always, with the bill.

Christine Grahame described the process as being a long and weary trek, but for me it was a joyful journey of discovery as I established just how important the planning process is and how interesting planners can be. We can make this day a sad one or a happy one. We can see how successful we have been in taking the bill through the process. For the first time in this Parliament, a consolidated version of the principal act was provided before stage 2 to enable people to understand the process better. There is also a commitment to provide a consolidated version of the principal act at the end of this process, along with an easy-to-read "what planning means to you" pamphlet, which is being written as I speak.

The package is balanced and it reflects engagement at every level over a long period of time. I assure members that it has not just taken one and a half days. In reality, nothing popped up at the last minute. All the issues, including the HMO issue, were discussed over that long period.

In the early stages, when the white paper was published and the bill was introduced, there was ridiculous scaremongering about power grabs and all the rest of it. Thankfully, that discussion stopped and everyone engaged when they realised that a critical discussion had to take place to move the bill forward.

I am disappointed that the Greens are not going to support the bill. To say that there is going to be community engagement but it is not really going to work is a counsel of despair. It means that the Greens are not even prepared to test the proposals—and they wonder why people are cynical at the end of the process. If people are told things are not going to work, we should not be surprised when they do not engage. It is important that we have a rational debate, in which it is recognised that the bill is neither a developers' charter nor a recipe for paralysis in our communities.

At stages 2 and 3 it was suggested that we are ministerial dupes mouthing the words of civil servants, unable to think for ourselves and taking the position that if Donald Gorrie's name is on an amendment we should simply oppose it. That is an insult to my integrity and to the intelligence of the Parliament, and it disregards the critical role of the Communities Committee in the bill process. There is real evidence of movement in the bill as it progressed from white paper to bill to stage 2 to stage 3.

I make a distinction for Donald Gorrie: it is not individual success that counts in determining whether this is a listening Executive, it is success across the board. Donald Gorrie and others might want to reflect on the self-fulfilling prophecy that if they persist in lodging and pressing amendments at stage 3 that were discussed and received no support at stage 2—and that receive no support at stage 3 either—there will not be enough time to discuss the substantial amendments that count.

It is important that we are all honest about our engagement with the process. We need honesty about the challenges. We hear about nimbys and cowboys. We do not accept that false characterisation of people in our communities, but the reality is that they exist. We must consider how planning can deliver what we all need but nobody wants, and how we can ensure that weaker communities do not suffer.

Environmental justice is critical. Equally, it is critical that the shared prosperity that flows from economic development comes with an understanding that local communities should be engaged at an early stage and an understanding of the critical role of local authorities in democratic legitimacy. Over the past two days, members have argued their position on the basis both that they trust local authorities and that they do not trust local authorities. They should confront that conflict in their position. We must be honest.

On the subject of honesty, the bold Jim Mather, speaking at the Scottish property convention on 17 May, said that he opposed third-party right of appeal. He assured the convention that the Scottish National Party would oppose its inclusion in the bill. That troubles me.

rose—

I will read the charge sheet first then let Jim Mather in. This is a serious charge. I suggest that Jim Mather has more faces than a town hall clock. Was he tailoring his comments to his audience? Did he not know what his group's position would be or was he incapable of influencing his group's position? We do not know because, despite the significant position he holds as an SNP front-bencher, he chose not to contribute at all to this important debate. He will not cover that up by referring to the amendment's opposition to business improvement districts.

I trust that the member will recognise that we protect people when there is a breach of the local plan. Is she content to leave communities powerless when there is a breach of the local plan?

It is obvious that there are tensions in members' positions on the third-party right of appeal. Jim Mather was unable to explain his position in relation to what he said to people in the business community, who believed that he was opposed to the third-party right of appeal. He is hung by his own comments.

We understand the critical issue of resources. Planners, members and I have not spent all this time producing legislation not to will the means for its delivery. The system is more efficient, so we will test it. Will it make a difference or not? We had a productive meeting with COSLA this week, and we know how critical it is that we give priority to understanding the real challenges of resourcing, to liberating planners from the grind so that they want to come into the profession and to having a system that delivers real change in our communities.

Christine May asked about planning guidance. I will write to her to provide more detail on that, but I assure her that archaeological sites have nothing to fear.

The culture change is a challenge, but we must all engage with it. I hope that, in supporting the bill, members will support the need to look at the planning system for what it can deliver and the need to ensure that everyone who is involved in it makes a difference so that the system works.