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.