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.