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.