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."