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.